Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:27 pm
I think there is some useful thinking about the REUEP in a post I did after a recent meeting, in which I presented a third alternative to the philosophical antithesis between Objectivism and Altruism. My post is an extension of the discussion in the meeting, and is a reply primarily to a group member that is a very educated advocate of Objectivism and very knowledgeable about philosophy in general. It is, more specifically, in response to his post after the meeting, clarifying my misconception as to the meaning of 93altruism.94
Thank you, [group member]. This is a helpful clarification of the issue discussed in yesterday's meeting. You have helped me see that my general impression over my lifetime of the meaning of "altruism" has not been the same as the more technical philosophical one.
I also can see how I would reject altruism, just as Objectivists do, though for different reasons (which cause me to reject Objectivism also). By reject I do not mean consider without value; I mean not being as valuable to me as my alternative (which as you know is Humanianity).
What Objectivism and Altruism have in common, that is not in common with at least my version of Humanianity, is the issue as to whether the ultimate ethical principle (different in the three cases) is arbitrary or for some reason necessarily true (or logical or inexorably following from the way the world undisputedly is).
In my lexicon, so to speak, the ultimate ethical principle (in a system of ethical thought) is the highest level principle that all other ethical principles and ethical rules of conduct must be consistent with. It is what ultimately legitimates any other ethical principle or ethical rule of conduct. Let's call it the UEP (ultimate ethical principle).
So now we can compare Altruism, Objectivism, and Humanianity (the new kid on the block) with regard to the UEP of each.
Altruism: Here you can insert one of the statements from Wikipedia, such as: You (or we) should help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
Objectivism: Here you can insert your preferred statement, especially since you are so thoroughly knowledgeable about Objectivism, but for the purpose of this post we will use my (hopefully not too inaccurate) understanding: You (or we) should do that which will sustain and enhance your own life, as long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do so.
Humanianity: Here we use the "official" UEP, labeled by me the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (REUEP): You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
Now there are several issues that can be addressed with regard to these UEP's, such as their desirability, workability, and help with or production of ethical dilemma. But another issue, the one I am going to focus on, is the issue of legitimization of the UEP, the issue of whether the UEP has to be so, and if it has to be so, why that is true. There are two basic possibilities:
The UEP does not have to be so; it is arbitrary, something you can choose to have as your UEP for whatever reasons you personally choose to do so.
The UEP does have to be so; the only choice is to accept it or erroneously not accept it (due perhaps to lack of education, emotional refusal, malignant oppositionalism, etc.).
Now my understanding is that Objectivism and Altruism say that the UEP has to be so.
My version of Humanianity says that it is arbitrary. I advocate for it (since I am a Humanian), but there is no reason it has to be accepted. I think that if you think about it enough (with open mind and lack of commitment to some ideology that would be inconsistent with it), you will gladly accept it and thereby become a Humanian along with me. (The defining characteristic of a Humanian, whose religion is Humanianity, consists only of the commitment to try to live by the REUEP.)
Now indeed, if there is a UEP that can be legitimated, shown to be necessarily so, then my pitiful Humanianity will have to step aside as a failed religion, in deference to the true and proper religion, be it Altruism, Objectivism, Christianity, Wicca, Atheism, etc.
Until then, I remain Humanian.
(BTW, lest I create misunderstanding, I am using the word, "religion," for the purposes of this post, to mean human activity to find the best way to live life, or something like that.)
(BTW2, I have my reasons for my choice of my UEP (REUEP), just as anyone choosing anything will do so for certain reasons. My reasons for my choice of the REUEP, and therefore for being Humanian, are explained somewhat at Humanianity.com.)
So it is this legitimization issue that we focused on for a while in our meeting (and have done so in previous meetings).
In our meeting, I hope I was able to demonstrate that the legitimization of its UEP, as presented by Rand, fails, in that it is based upon a play on words (not consciously or malevolently of course), having to do with its key concept that "value" is something that is ultimately an objective fact, this objective fact being demonstrable by focusing the attention on certain undeniable facts regarding all living things, as opposed to nonliving things, and certain undeniable facts regarding the difference between humans and all other living things.
My problem comes because these "undeniable facts" turn out to be, as far as I can tell, conclusions drawn not from observation but from syllogisms in which the same word is used in a different way in the propositions from which the conclusion is drawn. An example of this process would be:
I keep my clean underwear in my chest.
My chest should be kept clear of foreign bodies.
I should therefore see my primary care physician for referral to a surgeon and a psychiatrist.
Objectivism seems to me to assert that because every living thing "acts" in order to preserve its life, man "acting" to preserve his or her life is a biological necessity (and therefore ethical necessity) according to the laws of the universe. Because the metabolism of the amoeba has the result that the amoeba continues to meet the criteria for "living," it anthropomorphically and metaphorically is said to be "acting" to preserve its life, and this metaphoric similarity is what is used to justify that man should "act" (engage in decision-making) to preserve his life. In my mind, what is said about the amoeba's metabolism is irrelevant to what is being said about man's decision-making, and the two different meanings of the word "act" are what lead to this mistake. (The word "act" is used metaphorically even with regard to nonliving things, as I pointed out, an example being that hydrochloric acid "acts" on zinc to produce hydrogen and zinc chloride.) And this is only one example of this kind of error-producing process that I think I observe in the legitimization efforts by Objectivism.
We are at times unknowing victims of our own poetic creativity.
Bill Van Fleet
Humanian
Thank you, [group member]. This is a helpful clarification of the issue discussed in yesterday's meeting. You have helped me see that my general impression over my lifetime of the meaning of "altruism" has not been the same as the more technical philosophical one.
I also can see how I would reject altruism, just as Objectivists do, though for different reasons (which cause me to reject Objectivism also). By reject I do not mean consider without value; I mean not being as valuable to me as my alternative (which as you know is Humanianity).
What Objectivism and Altruism have in common, that is not in common with at least my version of Humanianity, is the issue as to whether the ultimate ethical principle (different in the three cases) is arbitrary or for some reason necessarily true (or logical or inexorably following from the way the world undisputedly is).
In my lexicon, so to speak, the ultimate ethical principle (in a system of ethical thought) is the highest level principle that all other ethical principles and ethical rules of conduct must be consistent with. It is what ultimately legitimates any other ethical principle or ethical rule of conduct. Let's call it the UEP (ultimate ethical principle).
So now we can compare Altruism, Objectivism, and Humanianity (the new kid on the block) with regard to the UEP of each.
Altruism: Here you can insert one of the statements from Wikipedia, such as: You (or we) should help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
Objectivism: Here you can insert your preferred statement, especially since you are so thoroughly knowledgeable about Objectivism, but for the purpose of this post we will use my (hopefully not too inaccurate) understanding: You (or we) should do that which will sustain and enhance your own life, as long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do so.
Humanianity: Here we use the "official" UEP, labeled by me the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (REUEP): You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
Now there are several issues that can be addressed with regard to these UEP's, such as their desirability, workability, and help with or production of ethical dilemma. But another issue, the one I am going to focus on, is the issue of legitimization of the UEP, the issue of whether the UEP has to be so, and if it has to be so, why that is true. There are two basic possibilities:
The UEP does not have to be so; it is arbitrary, something you can choose to have as your UEP for whatever reasons you personally choose to do so.
The UEP does have to be so; the only choice is to accept it or erroneously not accept it (due perhaps to lack of education, emotional refusal, malignant oppositionalism, etc.).
Now my understanding is that Objectivism and Altruism say that the UEP has to be so.
My version of Humanianity says that it is arbitrary. I advocate for it (since I am a Humanian), but there is no reason it has to be accepted. I think that if you think about it enough (with open mind and lack of commitment to some ideology that would be inconsistent with it), you will gladly accept it and thereby become a Humanian along with me. (The defining characteristic of a Humanian, whose religion is Humanianity, consists only of the commitment to try to live by the REUEP.)
Now indeed, if there is a UEP that can be legitimated, shown to be necessarily so, then my pitiful Humanianity will have to step aside as a failed religion, in deference to the true and proper religion, be it Altruism, Objectivism, Christianity, Wicca, Atheism, etc.
Until then, I remain Humanian.
(BTW, lest I create misunderstanding, I am using the word, "religion," for the purposes of this post, to mean human activity to find the best way to live life, or something like that.)
(BTW2, I have my reasons for my choice of my UEP (REUEP), just as anyone choosing anything will do so for certain reasons. My reasons for my choice of the REUEP, and therefore for being Humanian, are explained somewhat at Humanianity.com.)
So it is this legitimization issue that we focused on for a while in our meeting (and have done so in previous meetings).
In our meeting, I hope I was able to demonstrate that the legitimization of its UEP, as presented by Rand, fails, in that it is based upon a play on words (not consciously or malevolently of course), having to do with its key concept that "value" is something that is ultimately an objective fact, this objective fact being demonstrable by focusing the attention on certain undeniable facts regarding all living things, as opposed to nonliving things, and certain undeniable facts regarding the difference between humans and all other living things.
My problem comes because these "undeniable facts" turn out to be, as far as I can tell, conclusions drawn not from observation but from syllogisms in which the same word is used in a different way in the propositions from which the conclusion is drawn. An example of this process would be:
I keep my clean underwear in my chest.
My chest should be kept clear of foreign bodies.
I should therefore see my primary care physician for referral to a surgeon and a psychiatrist.
Objectivism seems to me to assert that because every living thing "acts" in order to preserve its life, man "acting" to preserve his or her life is a biological necessity (and therefore ethical necessity) according to the laws of the universe. Because the metabolism of the amoeba has the result that the amoeba continues to meet the criteria for "living," it anthropomorphically and metaphorically is said to be "acting" to preserve its life, and this metaphoric similarity is what is used to justify that man should "act" (engage in decision-making) to preserve his life. In my mind, what is said about the amoeba's metabolism is irrelevant to what is being said about man's decision-making, and the two different meanings of the word "act" are what lead to this mistake. (The word "act" is used metaphorically even with regard to nonliving things, as I pointed out, an example being that hydrochloric acid "acts" on zinc to produce hydrogen and zinc chloride.) And this is only one example of this kind of error-producing process that I think I observe in the legitimization efforts by Objectivism.
We are at times unknowing victims of our own poetic creativity.
Bill Van Fleet
Humanian