Escape to the Movies: Atlas Shrugged
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Mortrialus, let's distinguish between ethics and meta-ethics for a moment.Mortrialus said:
Ethics is our actual moral code. Meta-ethics is the code which determines what our moral code should be. You and I clearly have different meta-ethical systems.
My meta-ethics is that morality is the code that explains to a living creature (i.e. one that acts from other than instinct) how to live successfully. The basis for my meta-ethics is the recognition that only living creatures have ethics, and what differentiates life from not-life is the conditional nature of life based on actions and outcomes. Life being the self-sustaining process of living, it continues only if the appropriate sustaining actions are taken. In creatures for whom the appropriate actions are not instinctive, a set of principals is necessary to guide action successfully. These principals are morality, or the guide to how to live successfully.
Creatures that are social animals must take this into account in their morality. A wolf, for instance, that is not good at hunting in a pack is a bad wolf. Wolves need to hunt in packs to survive. On the other hand, creatures that are not social animals still have guides to their behavior. A tiger that tried to be a pack animal would be a bad tiger, because tigers are solitary predators.
You seem to base yours on the argument that morality is simply the way social species adjust their actions based on existing with societies. What's the basis of this argument, and why is it more powerful than my own more inclusive view that can encompass morality that takes into account the creature's whole nature, rather than just its social nature with regard to interactions with other social creatures?
Well, since you asked: Historically, the ancient Greeks believed that the sky was a celestial sphere. Thus, in holding up the heavens, Atlas was generally depicted as holding up a sphere. As the centuries passed, and science advanced, we abandoned the belief that the heavens were a celestial sphere. Yet the image of Atlas resonated powerfully within the consciousness of the English-speaking world. To make the metaphor useful again, Atlas became associated with holding up the earth (to the point where a complete set of maps of the world is called an atlas).Orange Monkey said:
In casual conversation between 20th century adults outside of Classical Studies majors, i.e. between Rearden and D'Anconia, it seems unlikely they'd refer to Atlas holding up the celestial sphere. And if they had, its unlikely a reader would know what they were talking about.
Given the changing notion of what sphere Atlas held, I think Rand can be forgiven for adopting the contemporary metaphor rather than the original myth.
I'll agree with you here for the sake of argument, but you immediately veer into why objectivism's views on mortality are wrong immediately after this segment.Archon said:
Once again, goodness as a measurement of usefulness or morality is a poor term.Archon said:
You overlook many things so you can paint the wolf who is a poor pack hunter as a bad wolf. Is it too young to be pack hunting? It is injured and currently unable to assist in pack hunting? Is it better suited for nurturing the young? Is it simply a lone wolf? There isn't a simple binary system for determining the "goodness" of something, and thus the term is useless the way you are currently using it.
The same applies here. In the past, Tigers and lions(Who operate in social prides) had a distant ancestor that was likely a solitary predator as tigers are now, but developed several mutations in the brain that lead to a divide between the two lineages, one of which being solitary hunters, and the others being social hunters. If a modern tiger were to develop similar mutations, and said mutations were successful and we slowly saw a transition of tigers from being solitary hunters to social hunters, does the term good or bad still apply? These types of binary rubrics for good or badness are silly. Objectivism does not work in a world in light evolution. There is a reason why excluding republicans, libertarians (The political party with the closest roots to Objectivism) are second only to republicans in regards to the percentages that disbelieves in evolution.Archon said:
Of course, evolution really says nothing on how we should live our lives and cooperate with each other. That is still up for the individual person to decide. If one values the survival of society and others, one needs to realize that generally speaking the more biological variation you have within a species the more likely it is to survive. Your broad brush in describing good and bad wolves doesn't work under these conditions. Environmental changes can easily shift what actually is going to survive in radical ways from what your system of good and bad.
Because the way you present it, the term morality becomes useless as it becomes indistinguishable from the definition of behavior. That said, I incorrectly defined it in my original post. It is the decision making process regarding the actions we choose in light of the society and the fact that our actions have consequences on others. There isn't anything more valid about my definition than yours, I simply find this definition to have the most practical effects, especially considering how differently our brains are wired to work in regards to how we view other humans and how we view other nonhuman animals.Archon said:
That's a weak rebuttal. A system of "good" based on function is no more or less binary than a system of "good" based on other criteria. Obviously limitations of space present an exhausting presentation of all the possibilities, but the fact that such complexities are present does not mean that it is impossible to make judgment.Mortrialus said:
You are the one who is applying a binary rubric. I'm offering a lightweight example, but as noted above, there's nothing more or less binary about "good" as a functional definiton than any other definition of good. "Evolutionary fitness" is not binary, but one can certainly conclude that certain creatures are fit and others unfit.
And you needn't lecture me on evolution as if I've never heard of it. I did graduate work for Robert Nozick at Harvard on the outcome of classic virtue ethics if you replace Aristotelian biology with modern (neo-Dwarinian) evolutionary theory.
According to evolution, selfish genes don't care whether society survives or others survive. They don't even care whether the *organism* survives. They care whether they survive. If you are genuine in your belief about evolution, you can only reach egoistic outcomes, at best softened by kin selection.
On what basis is my definition of morality useless or indistinguishable from behavior? Not all behavior is supportive of an organism's life. Perhaps for unintelligent lifeforms characterized by hardwired behavior, my definition of morality is indistinguishable from behavior. But for free-willed sapients, such as humans, we need a code of behavior to tell us what to do, because our instincts don't always.
Your definition seems to me to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand around the organism and its environment absent society, and society. For instance, why isn't morality "the decision making process regarding the actions an organism chooses in light of its nature and the fact that its actions have consequences." Why do consequences have to be on *others* to be moral?
Should a man isolated on an island with no apparent hope of rescue and believed by all others to be dead kill himself? Your view of morality can't even *ask* that question because it doesn't involve society or consequences on others.
Try again and when you do, please try to argue against the argument I actually made.Archon said:
I never said there was a system of good or bad. Not once. As far as I'm concerned, the only proper usage of the term good is to describe a favorable opinion one has in regards to something. I never. My point was that the binary system you use hilariously arbitrary.
Your analogy doesn't even properly work, because despite his current situation far outside of society, there is still a society the man obviously cares about and wants to be apart of. So there is a clear argument to be had there. Lets say he does want to die to avoide the loneliness, depression, sickness (And likely painful death without modern medicine), the question is whether that is worth it despite the slim chance that he could be found, but his suicide would obviously come as a saddening blow on his family. The fact that a society he was once apart of still exists makes the argument moot. Despite apparently being stranded for life, that might not necessarily be true. In the small chance that he was discovered, being found alive or being found having committed suicide would still effect on his family and other people he cares about.Archon said:
A better analogy would be should the last man in the world, after the rest of humanity suddenly died, kill himself? Truth be told, it isn't going to have profound effects either way. He isn't accountable to anyone. The only things coming into play here are whether he wants to live or whether he wants to die and I see nothing right or wrong with his choice either way in this situation. Literally no one aside from himself is effected by his choice.
The Fountianhead was very much the better book by Ann Ryand. It wasn't crazy heavy handed in politics and I think gives a better idea of what I would see objectivisim to be. The idea that one shouldn't bend their purpose to the will of many. Howard Roark was supposed to be the ideal of Ryand's perfect man (so you know, she apparently didn't mind being raped.) I think the message in the fountianhead was better suited as a workable way of life rather then "CASH RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME CREAM GET THE MONEY DOLLA DOLLA BILLS YA'LL" that I feel Atlas Shrugged had.
No, I can't. That was more just a response to Movie Bob's quote. I find he embodies that typical arrogant nerd stereotype where he thinks he could do things soooo much better if he had all the control, and I was just pointing out to no one in particular that whenever the powerful few are in charge, things don't work out so well.
I think objectivism is more akin to anarchy, really. And, let's be honest, the hard right's basic platform is essentially the same: take away all the regulations so the rich and powerful can do their thing at the expense of the poor and unfortunate.
thanks, Bob. I'm really glad you exist. This really does show that you are able to remove yourself from the movie and deliver solid and intelligent dialouge about the movie. You won my support after gutting Transformers. You challenged my thinking on GI Joe. You kick ass.
Objectivism, at its most basic, holds that selfishness is ethical and morally right. Everything rises out of our desire to survive and prosper, and thus any system that subordinates someone to a higher cause or forces them to work for the benefit of others is wrong. If anything can't be shown rationally to be in your self-interest, you shouldn't do it. The system is perpetuated when the good agree to sacrifice for the sake of the evil, and a lot of Atlas Shrugged involves convincing the businessmen-heroes not to do that anymore, and to let society collapse so they can build a new one in its place.Wabblefish said:
You might gather from the preceding paragraph that I am not a fan of Objectivism. It sounds really great the first time you hear it, especially if you are smart and capable and have always suspected that the world was holding you back with its silly religion and laws and moral code. It takes a while to realize the implications: Rand doesn't just reject religion, she rejects the concept of altruism on which all religions are founded. Objectivism, by being relentlessly logical in extrapolating from its myopic premises, creates a philosophy that has no way to alleviate the suffering of others, no way to value and appreciate the poor and the weak, no way to recognize love.
I'm afraid that I don't understand how your statement that "the only proper usage of the term good is to describe a favorable opinion" makes any sense in the context of your definition of morality.Mortrialus said:
Morever, (1) my system isn't binary; the existence of grey does not mean there is not black and white, however. (2) my system isn't arbitrary in that I explained its functional premise and evaluative criteria. YOUR definition is arbitrary, however. You have not once explained your basis for it, except to say you just like it or think its that way.
Great, let's go with your analogy. Going with the last man in the world then - here is our fundamental disagreement. I think a man's choice to live or die for himself matters; I think it's the most important moral choice of all.Archon said:
Why is the demarcation line between society and not-society not arbitrary?
And given your definition of "good", that you actually don't seem to mean anything when you say "moral" other than "you approve", doesn't that merely mean all you've said is "you don't care"?
And if morality is merely a statement of approval or disapproval, why do you care what other people think morality is, and how can you accuse them of being arbitrary without hypocrisy?
Except it doesn't, really. David Kelley, an Objectivist scholar, has written extensively on this. Check out his book, "The Unrugged Individualist: The Selfish Basis for Benevolence".Robyrt said:
I sometimes think this notion that Objectivism means "do whatever I want and f**k everybody else" has more to do with the fact that a lot of 16 year olds read Atlas Shrugged then with what the formal philosophy actually espouses. 16 year olds manage to find that same message in, among other things, Nietzsche and Existentialism, too.
http://www.amazon.com/Unrugged-Individualism-Selfish-Basis-Benevolence/dp/1577240669
