Morality -- Relative? or Absolute?

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well, I read the last 10 pages of Atlas Shrugged, which involved drawing the holy symbol of the dollar over the landscape, and 'correcting' the bill of rights by replacing individuals with corporations.... *cough*

[Fist and Faith]

That's the first silly thing I remember seeing in any of your posts. If you think that reading the last 10 pages of a 1000+ page book gives you the slightest understanding of what she's about...

What the dollar signifies to Rand is not necessarily what it signifies to you, nor what you assume it signifies to her. It's entirely possible that the previous 990+ pages give a more thorough explanation. Just as the religious discussions going on here should teach us that the word "Christian" means different things to different people calling themself one, capitalism is not a single concept written in stone. Here's a part that I think helps explain her. A businessman is on trial:

"I work for nothing but my own profit - whch I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability - I refuse to apologize for my success - I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other."

I don't know how anyone can disagree with any of that. Of course, it's possible to assume Rand means things other than she does, but without reading the book, you just can't know. For example: "Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not." You might believe he will pay his workers less than their services are worth to him. And you'd be wrong. But I can't quote the entire book. I think it's a masterpiece. All the different characters and sub-plots support and tie into each other beautifully, giving you a clear picture of what Rand believes.

There's a part of The Fountainhead that defines her ideas selfishness and selflessness nicely. Some might not quite see the connection between this and capitalism, and I don't think I would have if I hadn't read the entire books. But in her philosophy, they are inseperable.

"He’s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he’s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there ever been a self? What was his aim in life? Greatness – in other people’s eyes. Fame, admiration, envy – all that which comes from others. Others dictated his convictions, which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn’t want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn’t want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others. There’s your actual selflessness. It’s his ego he’s betrayed and given up. But everybody calls him selfish.”

“That’s the pattern most people follow.”

“Yes! And isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison.”

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Sorry if I offended you! Of course I don't understand the whole book from the last 10 pages...
The sentiments expressed in your quotes are a lot more reasonable, to be sure, then the last 10 pages, which obviously they would be. However, even the sentiments described in the first quote are, to me at least, possibly damaging if embraced.
It is a point of contention between a lot of my friends and I, but my heart lies in altruism. I see where she is coming from, but it is simply something that I don't respect... perhaps if everyone did as she suggests, some sort of a system would be worked out...
I really don't want to get into it too much without having read it, because it'll probly be a situation of you correcting me when I err because of my misunderstanding, but explain two things for me at least before we move on...
(a) what about the part I read where the main character rewrote the bill of rights so that it does not apply to the individual?
and
(b) what in the world would ever prevent anyone from having a monopoly, then expanding it until a single person owned everything, based on their ability as a businessperson, and their desire to achieve greatness through their work?

I think this is still sort of in topic, by the way.

Btw, I think calling someone silly is the closest thing I've ever seen to insulting that I've ever seen YOU post, hehehe. It actually makes me ashamed of myself...

[Fist and Faith]

I'm wasn't offended, and I don't think shame is necessary. Now if you had stuck to your guns, that is, continued to argue against writings you hadn't read... Heh.

Regarding your questions, let me say this: Some of what Rand said seems as objectively correct as the name of her philosophy suggests. (For those who don't know, it's Objectivism.) Atlas Shrugged ends with the promise of a new world order. One where, if things could work as she dreams, we would be in paradise. But it just won't work in the real world. No matter what governmental and economic systems we try, there will always be people who figure out how to cheat it. Stalin promised this and that, then killed 20,000,000 people, mainly Jews. The people's representatives in the U.S. government - the government of the people, by the people, and for the people - pass laws not for our benefit, but to benefit the groups who gave the biggest bribes.

I'm sure there are actual people with all the qualities of Rand's heroes - people who are brilliant, and hard-working, and have the type of self-worth that would never allow them to take advantage of anyone or any situation. But I'm sure there are even more people who are brilliant, but cheat whenever it suits their needs. A monopoly of any industry would be no problem if its owners did not say, "Hey, they can't go anywhere else for what we have, so we can charge anything we want! Woo hoo!!!" If everyone worked to the best of their ability, driven by things like honor and the pride of an honest day's work, I don't see where the problem would be. But when we see people selling 12-oz bottles of spring water for $10 each to people in danger of dehydration, we know monopolies would only destroy.

[Avatar]

Brightly, brightly, and with beauty...

I recognise that from somewhere Fist. Where, I'm not sure, but I definitely recognise it.

There is a saying about achieving the Zen mind that goes something like: "Just have no thoughts on your mind, and no mind on your thoughts".

That's not it exactly, but pretty close. I can't do it myself. (EDIT: Check out danlo's post in the Zen Quotes thread. Really embodies what this quote is trying to say, I think.)

I see what you're saying, re the desert island thing. I think your argument is a much better one. People live according to their circumstances. I can't imagine a thief simply sitting back and starving because there was nobody to steal from. And I agree with your opinion of WayFriends definition. An excellent one indeed.

JemCheeta-- To me, there is something inherently wrong in denying another their choices, or total despotism, or whatever. To me. All I'm saying is that the simple fact that there are people who don't think so makes it a subjective choice on my, and everybody else's part.

I do think that there is a great deal of variance in "being human". (Ever see the movie by the same name?) Sure, most of it may be socially induced, but the variance is there nonetheless.

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

I recognise that from somewhere Fist. Where, I'm not sure, but I definitely recognise it.

That's Valentine Michael Smith.

Jem, here's a little more quoting, just to try to give you a clear picture of Rand's ideas. From Atlas Shrugged:

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None - except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."

And from The Fountainhead:

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man - and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn't done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

[The Leper Fairy]

Fisty, you beat me to my favorite quote from the Fountainhead!

He does not exist for any other man - and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

Here's another one:

“To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I'.”

Peter and Dominque have a great talk about this but I couldn't find it.

[hierachy]

In my opinion, moral relativity is absolute.

[Fist and Faith]

Here's another one:

“To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I'.”

Peter and Dominque have a great talk about this but I couldn't find it.

My only serious problem with Rand's books is the romances. Her characters are SOOO screwed up about love, and none more than Dominique! What a wacko! Rand must have been pretty messed up about these feelings.

[Avatar]

Thanks Fist, I knew I knew it from somewhere.

He does not exist for any other man - and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

Sounds good to me. Never read any Rand myself, but certainly this quote appeals to me. Of course, it could be argued that setting up a society on those lines would be a form of social selfishness? (Not that I'm opposed on principle.)

--Avatar

[ChoChiyo]

I was but a callow youth when I attempted Ann Rand. I found her mind-numbingly dull.

I should try again now that I have age, experience, and, hopefully, a bit of wisdom.

[The Leper Fairy]

Here's another one:

“To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I'.”

Peter and Dominque have a great talk about this but I couldn't find it.

My only serious problem with Rand's books is the romances. Her characters are SOOO screwed up about love, and none more than Dominique! What a wacko! Rand must have been pretty messed up about these feelings.

Oh man, no kidding. Dominique has some serious issues with sex. Perhaps we should move this to the Fountainhead thread though?

[Avatar]

JemCheeta-- Hope you spot this one. I was thinking yesterday about what you were saying about there not being that much variance, and the common things that we all share, and you may be right.

Unfortunately, the way that I see you being right in directly contradicts the possibility of a universal morality. The one thing that we all share as humans, as living breathing entities, as mammals, as animals in other words, is self-interest.

We are designed on the concept of protecting ourselves, and doing whatever we can in order to give ourselves the best life, chance at reproduction, whatever that we possibly can.

Unfortunately, as we mentioned once in the "Good and Evil" thread, nature does not promote altruism. The natural order is that the strong shall live, and that to live, you do what it takes. This is hard-wired into our brains and bodies. Only social conditioning, re-programming if you will, makes us behave any other way.

As such, the one characteristic that we all share to a greater or lesser degree is selfishness. We strive always and automatically to benefit oursleves. Its a biological, genetic predisposition. This isn't to say thatit can't be overcome. It can. But it requires overcoming. It requires some sort of effort on our part.

Naturally though, we work for our own good. And although we think that people who steal etc. interpret or apply this incorrectly, they don't. They are perhaps simply operating at a more "primitive" level. We condition ourselves, and are conditioned, to not seek our betterment at the cost of others. In actual fact, the cost that others must bear has no impact on the basic drive. That basic drive cares for only one thing. The survival in as much comfort as possible of the person that the drive inhabits.

There is no morality in nature. There is no right or wrong. In nature, there is only Life or Death.
We create everything else.

--Avatar

[wayfriend]

We are designed on the concept of protecting ourselves, and doing whatever we can in order to give ourselves the best life, chance at reproduction, whatever that we possibly can.

In fact, one might go so far as to define 'morality' as the desire to suppress these basic drives in favor of more cerebral ideals.

[wayfriend]

We are designed on the concept of protecting ourselves, and doing whatever we can in order to give ourselves the best life, chance at reproduction, whatever that we possibly can.

In fact, one might go so far as to define 'morality' as the desire to suppress these basic drives in favor of more cerebral ideals.

[wayfriend]

We are designed on the concept of protecting ourselves, and doing whatever we can in order to give ourselves the best life, chance at reproduction, whatever that we possibly can.

In fact, one might go so far as to define 'morality' as the desire to suppress these basic drives in favor of more cerebral ideals.

[Brinn]

You can say that again!

[Avatar]

Damned Glitch! Still, I think WayFriend is right. Every time.

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Naturally though, we work for our own good. And although we think that people who steal etc. interpret or apply this incorrectly, they don't. They are perhaps simply operating at a more "primitive" level. We condition ourselves, and are conditioned, to not seek our betterment at the cost of others. In actual fact, the cost that others must bear has no impact on the basic drive. That basic drive cares for only one thing. The survival in as much comfort as possible of the person that the drive inhabits.

Consider: This primitive level that they are operating on (although I don't know if I like this use of primitive) they are trying to succeed and flourish, yes? Get by, increase wealth, etcetera.... but that's not what happens. They are not made 'stronger' instead they are made weaker, poorer, and imprisoned.
The human mind exists, the rational thought process is a part of being a healthy human-animal (or so it would seem) and a proper application of this, one of the tools that the human has available, would probably cause people to stop stealing in certain situations, or at least get a lot better at it.
But that's a start at least, acknowledging the self interest of humanity.
I totally agree about that...
However, we are social animals by nature. Part of our success and survival depends on support networks of friends, family members, business partners, etc. In this way, cultivating these things may be one of the easiest ways to serve oneself.

Alright, we start at selfishness as a trait all animals possess. I'm down with that, I'd sign that bill into a law, as it were...
However, I still think you're being unrealistic about humans if you stop there. We don't JUST share selfishness. Our brains have a very similar construction, as do our bodies. These things, in my opinion, impact our lives here on earth.
Absolute morality isn't what I'm arguing for here...
not even conditionally human absolute morality,
But a system of ideas that could be based on the similarities of humans, and human behaviour. Sociology as a science would be impossible (and it might be ;) ) if there weren't common behaviours in the human animal, and I don't think it's just this whacky human construction of 'society'.
You could look at human society in the same way you look at any animal society... there isn't this wierd social institution that forces the naturally selfish wolf into a pack, it's simply the best way the wolf operates.

[wayfriend]

Still, I think WayFriend is right. Every time. --A

Okay, I need to introduce you to my wife some time, so you can explain this to her ...