Philosophy post today!...and I'm affraid its time to tackle Ayn Rand. The reason i'm writing about rational egoism today is poker related. I was sitting across from a guy who had the handle, Aynrandhero. So when I called him out on his name, and told him rational egoism was ridiculous he said, "I get into these arguments all the time, I just want to play poker." Fair enough, I stacked him then he left in a huff saying, "you play poker about as well as you argue against rational egoism." So i figure, since I proved I could already best him in one, why not the other!
Rational egoism - is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest.
Okay, there are a number of ways to attack this argument. The first is a very interesting internal problem with the argument, and the one I offer is an extension of this argument that offers a more complete alternative.
The argument of arbitrariness: It would seem that rational egoism puts at the forefront of its argument an arbitrary perspective of the self. Why self-interest? What possible justification is there for choosing concern with self over concern with other people, or other things. How is selfishness more correct than fishishness (the concern about the well-being of fish?) or rockishness (the concern about the well being of ACDC?) The only response offered by Ayn Rand and other rational egoism is that this is the perspective we are all viewing the world from, so it only makes sense to make decisions based on it. Well, this may do for some, but I'm not convinced that one can apply this universally. Detractors say that this is merely a bias and not proof of correctness. I'm inclined to agree.
The argument that I tend to make is that we act correctly or incorrectly based on genetic egoism. That is to say we are selfish in so much as we protect our genes. This probably results from being the son of a genetic biologist and thus a bias towards empirical data and scientific conclusions. So where is this empirical data? It lies as so often is the case, in nature, my favorite lab for philosophical testing. In nature, there is a trend amongst some birds to have one or two (usually alpha males or flock leaders or whatnot) call out when they see danger, drawing attention to itself and warning the flock. It would seem to be against self-interest to put oneself in the harms way, so what possible rational egoism explanation is there? I would argue one would not find it in selfishness, but rather genetic rationalism. Protecting one's progeny outweighs the importance of protecting ones own life. Thus, the trait is passed on through the descendants of the endangered birds. This trait is not limited to birds, and examples can be found across species. Humans often will make sacrifices (some as grave as life itself) for their family and friends, and no one finds them to be silly or ridiculous (save maybe Nietzsche and he may have a point, but that's a different argument for a different day) in fact, most would find it a noble act, maybe make a movie about it (John Q anyone?).
The bottom line is, I can see the inner workings of genetic egoism. It plays out across the world as natural selection selects the traits that improve the replication of genes. The argument is not based on some unfounded bias of self interest, but rather relies on the basis for all decision making...procreation. I think this is like, the third philosophical argument that ends with me advocating decision making based on sex! That has to be some kind of record lol, or perhaps some sad commentary on my current situation....no no definitely the former!
Poker is going well...sorta. I'm still playing well, but luck has other motives, here's the past two days.
Finished the book ;) what a novel! lol
ReplyDeleteTime for me to rant:
Objectivists believe that there would be no question of conflicts of interest if there were no conflicts between the different things that people want.But wants are not to be identified with interests. If they were, we would have to admit that there is no such thing as a bad habit, i. e., something someone wants to do which is not in his interests. We would also have to countenance the possibility that there may be a conflict between a persons own interests -- no reference to the interests or wants of others would be needed to generate conflict.
Consider a simple example: An employer might, if the option were available, prefer to have an employee work for no remuneration. Similarly , the employee in question might, were the option available, prefer as remuneration the entire assets of the employer (for no work!). Though there is a conflict between out-of-context preferences here, there is no conflict of interests because both the employer and the employee can (or should be able to) see that on such terms there would be no employment. So long as the employer needs to be able to hire others to perform certain functions and so long as the employee needs a job, neither will be able to get all she would prefer. The very possibility of an employment arrangement between them depends on their willingness to agree to and abide by terms intermediate between the two extremes.
Rant #2:
Individualism and selflessness is what got us into this economic turmoil. It was the greedy mindset of the Americans that caused the foreclosures and the stocks to plummet. I had a conversation about this with a friend the other day, and he said, “well what about the CEOs who are paying their employees out of their own pocket? Aren’t they being altruistic?” Well yes they are being kind in the fact that they are essentially donating money but they are only doing it to make themselves feel better. These people aren’t stupid, they know that the blame will be put on them for the laying off of hundreds of jobs and their stock value being cut in half. They know they are going to be considered the “bad guys”; however, they realize that if they make up for this by giving back then they will be noted for their good deeds. This makes them think that they are doing something useful for society and it is greatly satisfying for them. This ties in with religion; the main purpose of religion and devoting your life to it is to make you feel better about yourself. To know that you erased your sins and that you’ll be going to heaven provides hope, relief and a sense of fulfillment. Strictly going by the Bible for your whole life is silly, esp. if you're just doing it to make yourself feel better. Fml.com is the better option in my opinion; it's fast, effective and entertaining ;)
I like the bird example, but my only question is, what about sharks? They are for the most part, solitary animals that don't like to share their prey and travel alone. Considered one of the deadliest animals on earth, they work by themselves, not relying on others to survive.
Anyways, there you have it. My take on The Fountainheadache.
haha I love it when the comments are more well thought out than the original post :)
ReplyDeleteLet me first deal with the shark as it is the simplest of your objections. I am not a believer that because a strategy for survival prevails in nature that it is the correct philosophy for life. I merely posit that due to its presence in nature, it is worthy of consideration. So, in a sense, yes solitary self interested sharks are incredibly successful, but it is important to adjust your view of what "successful" means. "Success" for the shark is survival and procreation, and as a non-colonizing creature, with copious amounts of food and space, the shark can stand to be solitary and self interested. It is the introduction of scaricity of resources that requires colonization and interaction. It is in scarcity that solitary self interest loses all hope of being a viable option.
This relates quite well to your employment example. In actuality the self interest of both the employee and employer are the same, yet different than if they were in a state of nature (shark state). So I think Rand has the argument that given forced interaction the intermediate is in fact the best and most self-interested choice.
As for the economic turmoil, if you look back at my previous post about deregulation and selfishness, you will see where I stand on that. I think there is a lot of sharkish behavior on the part of Ceo's. They make self interested decisions because to them resources are abundant, and it becomes more important to deal with their own interests than the interests of stock holders. In economics we call this the "management problem". It is very real, and on display allll the time.
As for your bible rants and FML stuff, just LOL
I love that site :)
Be careful who u diss the bible around, but u know ur in friendly company here ;)
goot to here from u again!