The Moral Vacuum in Objectivism

In one of Reason magazine's many retrospectives on Ayn Rand, Shikha Dalmia neatly summarizes a major problem in Objectivist ethics:

This has profound and unfortunate political consequences. On the practical level, it makes it difficult to build a strong and growing anti-government movement based solely on Rand's philosophy, because the older cohort of her followers is falling off on a regular basis. On the theoretical level, Rand's ideas offer no real possibility of developing robust civil society responses to address the needs of those down on their luck. It is difficult to imagine a Randian qua Randian, say, volunteering in a soup kitchen to feed the hungry, or even founding the Fraternal Order of Fellow Randians to provide free health coverage and housing to jobless and homeless Randians. Since misfortune and distress are a normal part of the human condition, a philosophy that offers no positive, private solutions to deal with them will just have a harder time making the case against government intervention stick.

Rand held that charity was not only not morally obligatory, but was immoral because it placed the needs of others above those of the self. I've always found this to be an inadequate ethical premise, if for only pragmatic reasons.

Eventually, each one of us will find ourselves flat on our back and helpless, like a flipped-over turtle. We'll be down, crushed, and broken, and we'll need someone to pick us up -- with no expectation of remuneration. The Objectivist would simply pass by without stopping. And a society wholly comprised of such individuals will degrade over time because members would not get assistance when they need it. Some altruism is necessary.

Of course, a society in which there existed a general social contract -- you pick me up when I'm down, and vice versa -- could be said to espouse selfishness as the fundamental motive.

Pop Culture Alignment

This chart shows the moral alignments of nine pop culture characters using the Dungeons & Dragons alignment system. Rorschach as Chaotic Good? I think that Chaotic Neutral is more likely. And Neutral Good for John Locke at best.

Top row, left to right: John Locke of Lost, Dwight from Sin City, Rorschach of Watchmen.
Middle row: Indiana Jones, Niko Bellic of Grand Theft Auto 4, Tyler Durden of Fight Club.
Bottom row: Darth Vader, Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men, and the Joker.

I'm not sure who's responsible for this chart -- it's been floating around the net. I found it via Jeremy Barker's Popped Culture.

Way back in my gaming days, I often thought of Palladium's alignment system, which accepted selfishness as a factor in human behavior, instead of a pure good-evil duality.

A couple of years ago, I would have thought of myself as Neutral Good. Right now, I'm moving firmly in the direction of Chaotic Neutral. Appropriately, Fight Club to be a movie that spoke to me in a powerful way.

What's your alignment?

Shepard Fairey, Plagiarist

I'm not a fan of Shepard Fairey's politics, but I love his artwork. It's vibrant, vivid stuff. A pity that it's not actually his. After his lawyers ditched him for lying to them, he admitted that he did steal an image from the Associated Press as the basis of his famous "Hope" poster of President Obama.

It gets worse: here's a post from 2007 by a man named Mark Vallen showing, image by image, how much work Fairey has plagiarized. (H/T)

Had Fairey identified himself as a collage artist and been upfront about his incorporation of outside images, there would be no ethical issue at stake. There might be legal issues for copyrighted images, of course, but not an ethical one.

The work in Fairey's portfolio is simply stunning and I'd love to have many of these images adorn the walls of my home. They remain beautiful. They're just not Fariey's.

Moral Priorities at Work

Annoyed Librarian often writes about librarian job postings are so demanding and so low-paying that they seem insulting to the librarians who read them. When I was in library school, we called these "West Jeff Jobs" because the West Jefferson Public Library was especially notorious for offering them. AL rants about what such jobs do for morale in the profession:

So, sure, in one sense, many of your jobs do suck, but I reserve my Library Jobs that Suck category for very specific jobs. A Library Job that Sucks must be temporary, part-time, and require an MLS and library experience. These have always seemed to me the most shameful jobs, the ones where libraries were trying to exploit a bad job market to get better librarians than they morally deserve, where they demand professionals but don't provide professional situations. Jobs like these make all of us worse off, because it shows that there are libraries that don't take seriously any professional or personal commitment to librarians. The librarians become mere widgets to be exploited at will and disposed of easily. That's hardly the sort of job that brings glory to the profession.

There's no such thing as "morally deserve" in relation to wages. You deserve only what your employer has agreed to pay you for your labor. And that's unlikely to be anything other than what the market can support. If you think that the market can support more, then go and get a different job.

You should assume that your employer is only interested in exploiting you for corporate (or personal) profit. Your employer should assume that your only interest is in personal profit. Once you understand that your employer only wants to exploit you, and that you only want to exploit your employer, you'll be much happier because you won't be guided by illusionary moral motives.

Your employer may regard you as nothing but a widget but (1) he'll do that anyway, even if you think that it's unfair or socially irresponsible and (2) you're free to do likewise to your employer. An employer might exploit a labor glut, but you're also free to exploit a labor shortage.

I think that some librarians get far too emotionally invested in their work, and that's why complaints like this are common. They want to save the world, or at least some part of it. They see their work as a moral calling rather than as a way to make money. And I confess that I, too, used to be afflicted with this impaired thinking.

Now, the only reason I go to work is for my paycheck. I earn it fair and square by doing the work that I agreed to do for that paycheck, and no more. If other people benefit or social goods are attained, it is of no consequence so me; only that I get paid.

And I'm quite open about this. My employer doesn't mind because I do my job well.

If you don't think that an employer is paying you enough money, don't work there. You have no moral duty to care about society in general or any institution or profession in particular. You're free to act in your self-interest, and so is everyone else.

Ethical Question of the Day

Biotechnology and genetic engineering have created ethical dilemmas that previous generations never imagined.

As an omnivore, I'm mildly concerned about whether or not the animals that I eat are raised and slaughtered in a way that minimizes their suffering.

Now let's say that scientists create livestock that are incapable of feeling physical pain:

In 2006, researchers found six Pakistani children who felt no pain due to an inactivated gene, and who constantly had bruises and cuts. One fell into the habit of putting knives through his hand and walking barefoot on coals, before his untimely death.

Still, scientists already know that humans can intellectually dissociate the sensation of pain from how much it bothers them. Lab experiments with mice have also suggested a way to disconnect that pain sensation without totally leaving animals vulnerable to a world of hurt.

All of which leads Jeremy Hsu to ask the question:

Is it ethical to engineeer delicious cows that feel no pain?

How do you respond?

Vegetarianism is Immoral

That's the stand that Mark Kirkorian takes in this confusing post at the National Review's flagship blog. Among the vegetarian arguments that he addresses is that animal husbandry is often cruel in is methods of slaughter:

The practical reasons are invalid to buttress such a principle because none is categorical. For instance, if our modern methods of animal husbandry are cruel and inhumane and unsafe, refusing to consume meat whose provenance is unclear is a perfectly sound decision. But it's not vegetarianism, because it leaves open the possibility of buying meat at the farmer's market or straight from the farm from a man who raised and slaughtered his livestock humanely, something that's actually quite easy nowadays.

Except that this is a moral argument. To say "I will not support cruel slaughter methods" is a moral stance, even if it incomplete by more radical vegetarian positions.

I'm an omnivore, but I was once a a vegetarian years ago for the most important reason of all: to impress a girl. I had practical reasons, but if Kirkorian hasn't heard a vegetarian make moral arguments against eating meat, then he should get out of his bubble a little more.

And even if you accept his odd arguments, all he had done is prove that vegetarianism is amoral, not immoral; that is, a moral wrong.

Wherein I Find Myself Defending Pacifism

It's a topsy-turvy world. CarteachO writes that he is always armed because he sees self-defense as not only a right, but a moral obligation:

I carry a weapon because it is the moral thing to do. It meets with my definition of doing ‘right’. Being prepared to defend myself and loved ones is part of being a responsible person.

Please allow me to explain…

I believe people have a ‘moral obligation’ to take responsibility for themselves, not leaving the task as a burden to others. I know this may not be a popular concept in some circles, but that doesn't change it as my belief. I know we are laden with entire generations of people who honestly think they bear no responsibility for their own safety, wellbeing, and actions.

I engaged this idea in the comment thread, asserting that one only has a moral obligation to defend oneself if one insists upon being defended by others. If a person refuses to defend him/herself, but also declines the defense of others, s/he has not engaged in parasitism and therefore has committed no moral wrong.

If people are truly free, then they are free to make bad decisions as well as good ones; they are free to choose to live and to choose to die. If people cannot opt out of a social contract, they are merely slaves, not free men and women.

Some of the commentors whether or not a pacifist has the right to decline to use force to defend his/her children from violence. This is an interesting question which requires contemplation. It is similar to the question of whether or not a parent may ethically decline medical treatment based upon religious grounds.

HT: Hell In a Handbasket

Switch Hitter

Since exiting Christianity, I have been forced to reassess many things, including particular ethical issues. And as the Bible was written, compiled and translated by the Church, I now consider it to be a questionable source for ethical formulation. All of which is a long preface to this statement:

Without a Biblical mandate, I am at a loss to see how homosexual activity is inherently immoral.

More Thoughts on Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

I've finished reading this book. I like Browne's assertion that the individual is the only legitimate judge of how he or she shall live. But I disagree with him on some points.

1. Consequentalist morality.
Browne asserts that morality is entirely relative to the individual, and that such a system works:

Neither do I have to worry about whether anyone is "getting away" with anything. I am not the world's policeman. I know that everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his acts are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it. The consequences are the only standards that matters -- and I'm certainly not needed to impose those consequences. (349)

This strikes me as incredibly unrealistic. Under this moral system, if a thief breaks into your house and robs you, he hasn't done anything wrong so as long as he doesn't get caught and face consequences.

At minimum, a moral code requires individuals to respect each others' lives, liberty, and property, because...well, because people have a right to live, live as they choose, and have stuff so as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights to do likewise.

2. Marriage.
Harry Browne rejects marriage as a concept. He thinks that no relationship should be a permanent commitment, but only at the consistent mutual desire of all of the parties involved. To an extent this is true, but he envisions love as an uncontrollable emotion that can either come and go. But love can be an action verb, a conscious decision made between consenting parties. Marriages can be crushing and soul-consuming, but they don't have to be.

3. Children.
I see the decision to be a parent to be a permanent commitment over a lifetime. I may not always financially support my daughter for her entire life, but I will always love her, and I will certainly support her until she is able to take that responsibility for herself. Browne proposes that if a parent grows weary of a child, simply place that child up for adoption and be free. In his understanding of parenting, a parent is not morally required to remain in the parent-child relationship indefinitely. Browne himself had not seen his own daughter for nine years at the time that this book was published, and he was okay with that, because it was an acceptable price to pay to get free from his marriage. As he sees it, the desire to be free is cause enough to abandon spouses, children, and anything else that impedes one's personal freedom.

I disagree. The desire to be free does not provide justification to abandon all commitments of responsibility.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne

My current read is How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne. Browne was professional investor and writer, as well as the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000.

This book was first published in 1973, and is Browne's treatise on how to avoid falling under the control over other people, institutions, and ideas that enslave us. His objective is to teach readers how to become freer from these fourteen 'traps'.

They are:
1. Identity trap
2. Intellectual trap
3. Emotional trap
4. Morality trap
5. Unselfishness trap
6. Group trap
7. Government trap
8. Despair trap
9. Rights trap
10. Utopia trap
11. Burning-issue trap
12. Previous-investment trap
13. Box trap
14. Certainty trap

These traps are mostly states of mind, whereby a person incorrectly assumes that they cannot -- or should not -- be free and rule themselves. Browne attempts to cut through these faulty beliefs.

The book (so far) seems strongly Objectivist. It is not a strictly libertarian work, and directly rejects libertarian or other political activism. Browne advises that, in the face of government restriction, one should avoid government, not confront it. Don't organize against government, because that will incur retaliation from government. Just keep a low profile and focus on your own desires. Your goal shouldn't be to free society, but to free yourself -- to care about your happiness and only your individual happiness.

It's quite an interesting work. Here's a passage from The Morality Trap:

There are plenty of people who will be delighted to tell you how to live. You'll hear the words "moral" and "immoral" often enough.

A person who tells you to act "morally" might have any one of a number of reasons. He might really believe that your moral conduct is essential to the future of the world. Or he may believe that he's God's appointed policeman. Or he may be using morality as a weapon to pressure you to do what's best for him. Or he may just have nothing better to do with his time.

Whatever his reason, remember that it's his reason. Too often, morality is used merely as a tool by which one person hopes to manipulate another.

Your reasons for how you live will necessarily be your own. No one knows you as you can know yourself. And only from that self-understanding can you hope to create a code of conduct that will bring you the freedom and happiness that you crave....

Personal morality is an attempt to consider all the relevant consequences for your acts. If you think out of morality for yourself, it should open up a better life that will be free from the bad consequences that complicate matters....

When you decide to take matters into your own hands, someone may ask you, "Who do you think you are? Who are you to decide for yourself in the face of society and centuries of moral teachings?"

The answer is simple: You are you, the person who will live with the consequences of what you do. No one else can be responsible, because no one else will experience the consequences of your actions as you will.

During my own long exit from Christianity, I slowly came to realize that the leaders of the Church who claimed authority over my life -- to whom I had willingly yielded authority -- had only self-serving motives. It would have been difficult for them to be more blunt and explicit that they really didn't care about what happened to me and my family. They had broken covenant with me, therefore I was under no obligation to heed their will in any matter.

The expectation and birth of my daughter really sharpened my thought processes. I was a father. I held my child in my arms minutes after she was born and promised her that I would do all within my power to provide for her and protect her. The Church had done nothing but drain me and my family emotionally, physically, and most importantly, financially. As a husband and a father, it would have been recklessly irresponsible for me to remain a Christian.

I had to get out of that cult before it destroyed us all. So I did. To be a good father to my child, I had to be a fully functional human being, and so I acted accordingly.

Responses were numerous, and usually supportive. Some, not so much. Some questioned who was I to dare to speak out against the Church. Some suggested that I had a moral obligation to God to continue to remain under its domination (God and the Church being synonymous). To reject this obligation imposed upon me was immoral.

Who am I to determine right and wrong? Who am I to oppose the Church? I am human being. And for the sake of myself, my wife, and my child, I will be as free a human being as I possibly can.

No god worthy of my worship would condemn me for having done so. And if a god sends me to hell for refusing to sacrifice my daughter for the petty whims of liars and frauds, then to hell I will gladly go.

The Murder of an Abortion Doctor

I find it hard to argue with Jacob Sullum's logic:

Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act. It may be unwise or counterproductive to the cause, as Schenck suggests when he worries that the killing could be "a greater setback to the pro-life movement than anything the so-called pro-choice movement could do." Promoting an image of pro-life activists as murderous extremists might dim the prospects for legislation restricting abortion, thereby leading to more deaths of unborn children than eliminating one abortionist prevents. But this is a tactical question that does not have to do with the inherent morality of killing in defense of innocent children.

Nor is it sufficient to note that killing Tiller was against the law. When the law blesses the murder of babies, it is hardly worthy of respect, any more than laws blessing the enslavement of Africans or the gassing of Jews were, and violent resistance against such enactments surely is justified in principle.

Some of Sullum's commentors point to a third option: pacifism, which might decry abortion as murder, but morally forbid violence in response. Others discuss the nuances of Just War Theory as it would relate to an extrajudicial killing.

UPDATE: Further ruminations from the ever-thoughtful Megan McArdle.

So. Now I can move onto the observation that if you actually think late-term abortion is murder, then the murder of Dr. Tiller makes total sense. Putting up touching anecdotes about people he's helped find adoptions, etc, doesn't change the fact that if you think late-term abortions are murder, the man was systematically butchering hundreds of human beings a year--indeed, not merely butchering them, but vivisecting them without anaesthetic. I'm sure many mass murderers have done any number of kind things over the course of their lives, to which the correct response, if you're trying to stop the murders, is "so?"

Imagine a future in which the moral consensus has changed, and our grandchildren regard abortion the way we regard slavery. Who will the hero of history be: Tiller, or his murderer? At the very least, they'll be conflicted, the way we are about John Brown.

A Middle Ground in Abortion

Is an unborn child a human life? This is the question that radicalizes the abortion debate in America. Steve Waldman thinks that the question forces us into a false dichotomy. He suggests that human life is a progressive continuum between less human and more human:

Open minded pro-lifers would take note of these concessions from their "enemies," viewing them as a sign that these pro-choicers--far from being hideous baby killers--fully embrace a moral dimension to the abortion decision.

Meanwhile, any pro-lifers who accept this framework would be making a concession, too. They'd be saying, in effect, that if the other side can concede that something precious is alive - and becoming more alive with each day - then they could, in turn, acknowledge that reasonable people, of different faiths, can disagree about when exactly that baby becomes alive enough to have legal rights.

My thoughts:

1. Waldman seems very focused on getting pro-choice and pro-life sides to be nice to each other. I'm more concerned with not killing babies than sparing the feelings of people on the other side of the debate.

2. Human life a continuum of becoming? Interesting idea. But when in doubt, I err in favor of not killing babies.

3. Would a developmentally disabled person be considered less of a human being in this new understanding of human life as a continuum?

4. Should murdering a developmentally disabled person be considered a less serious crime, perhaps on par with cruelty to animals?

Question of the Day: Cloning

The New York Times has an article up about a German project to map the Neanderthal genome. A Harvard Medical School professor says that it should be possible to clone a Neanderthal from this information for about $30 million. Radley Balko poses various ethical questions related to whether or not a Neanderthal is a human being, but leaving those aside....

Is it ethical to clone a human being?

Question of the Day

Scenario 1: A private high school interviews a number of applicants for an open teaching position. The most qualified applicant is a 24/7 crossdresser -- in fact, he attends the interview dressed as a woman. The school decides that the leading applicant's crossdressing would be distracting to the students, and decides not to hire him on that basis.

Scenario 2: A for-profit corporation interviews a number of applicants for an open accounting position. The most qualified applicant is a 24/7 crossdresser -- in fact, he attends the interview dressed as a woman. The school decides that the leading applicant's crossdressing would be distracting from workplace productivity, and decides not to hire him on that basis.

In each scenario, has the employer acted ethically?

Questions of the Day

Are modern-day African Americans owed slavery reparations by modern-day European Americans or the United States government?


If yes, how should these reparations be paid?

Question of the Day

A couple of days ago, I watched the old Spencer Tracy film Judgment at Nuremberg, and it got me thinking about collective moral responsibility.

Is there such a thing as legitimate guilt for an action that a person has no indirect involvement in? For example, does an ordinary German born after 1945 have some guilt or moral debt to Holocaust survivors, or does an American born in the 21st Century bear some guilt or moral debt to Native Americans?

Question of the Day: Euthanasia

Last week, my rabbit Hyzenthlay had half of her left front foot amputated due to a malignant tumor. She was remarkably mobile, even the next day, for having undergone such a severe surgery.

The biopsy results came back yesterday. We had determined that if they revealed that the cancer had continued to spread beyond the amputation site, we would have her euthanized because her quality of life would be enormously diminished. Although three-legged dogs can be rather content, because of a the way that a rabbit moves, the complete amputation of her leg would leave her very badly crippled.

Her brother Inlehain's death was sudden and therefore quite traumatic. But if we had to put her down (which we will, when and sadly not if, the cancer returns) she would have lived a full six years. That is a good life for a rabbit, and we were content with that possibility.

But as I spent all day yesterday on airplanes, I had plenty of time to think. And I got to thinking about how we justify the euthanasia of animals on the basis of pain and suffering (or anything else) and reject a similar rationale for the euthanasia of humans.

If we accept that humans have an afterlife, and animals do not (a premise that I do not share), then the death of an animal is more final than that of a human. So if anything, we should be even more inclined support euthanasia for humans than for animals.

How have we, as a society, made this distinction?

So I put the question to you, dear readers:

How do we justify the euthanasia of animals but reject it for humans?

How Would You Approach This Ethical Dilemma?

A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

via

Emerging Trend: American Christian Circumcisions

This is an interesting Washington Post article. It says that increasing numbers of American Christians are circumcising their baby boys for religious reasons -- and in the home, by a mohel no less. I think that Paul put to rest any theological justification for circumcision, although he circumcised Timothy.

Before we found out that we were having a little girl, I researched the subject and determined that there was barely any medical justification for infant circumcision, and certainly none to offset the potential risks.

Well, enough of the serious talk. This is Locusts & Honey after all. Here is a great clip on circumcision from the Mel Brooks film Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

[YouTube Link]

What do you think of the practice of routine infant circumcision?

Question of the Day

Was the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?