Is it moral to not intervene? Is it immoral to intervene?

[Grizwald]

One way to look at determining morality is universality. Look at the opposite of non-aggression, where it would be moral to initiate force. If you universalize it, so that everyone, always initiated force against others, does that make a consistent moral framework? I think such a society would fail pretty quickly, and it would be next to impossible to raise offspring (let alone procreate). So, if aggression cannot be universalized, it is not a a valid moral rule.

 

As for "selfishness," what do you mean by the term? We should settle on clear definitions.

 

Well yes it would be impossible to procreate and it would fall pretty quickly. But then what are you saying about morality? Universality is necessary but it doesn't determine moral or immoral behavior. You're defining moral behavior as that which benefits society (all individuals). So it would be, under that context, to say that moral behavior is non-aggression. But why should morality (moral or immoral) be based on beneficial or harmful behavior? Why can't morality be, lets say, democratic, autocratic, based on fiction novels, ect. Why can't morality be based on helping the poor? Why can't we say morality is based on something else? Why is altruism immoral? How/Where do we derive the basis for determining what we ought to do? 

 

I define selfishness as acting upon one's own desires. But when taken to its extreme, selfishness can lead to things such as mass murders. This is why I can't conclude selfishness to be the ultimate moral good. If humans are naturally born or develop empathy towards each other, then why is altruism condemned by Ayn Rand? Or is it true that empathy is just a form of selfishness? What do you think?

[shirgall]

Well yes it would be impossible to procreate and it would fall pretty quickly. But then what are you saying about morality? Universality is necessary but it doesn't determine moral or immoral behavior. You're defining moral behavior as that which benefits society (all individuals). So it would be, under that context, to say that moral behavior is non-aggression. But why should morality (moral or immoral) be based on beneficial or harmful behavior? Why can't morality be, lets say, democratic, autocratic, based on fiction novels, ect. Why can't morality be based on helping the poor? Why can't we say morality is based on something else? Why is altruism immoral? How/Where do we derive the basis for determining what we ought to do? 

 

I define selfishness as acting upon one's own desires. But when taken to its extreme, selfishness can lead to things such as mass murders. This is why I can't conclude selfishness to be the ultimate moral good. If humans are naturally born or develop empathy towards each other, then why is altruism condemned by Ayn Rand? Or is it true that empathy is just a form of selfishness? What do you think?

 

Hrm.

 

If we defined selfishness as "being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others" that might apply, but not "acting upon one's own desires." I think the Ayn Rand definition you are looking for is more like "concern with one's own interests."

 

If you are concerned with your own interests, you might not live solely for the benefit of another, but you might be generous. If you develop a reputation as a fair, honest, and logical person it benefits you. It doesn't have to benefit you tangibly, but it may lubricate your relationships with others immensely. Always giving to random beggars on the street no matter what the circumstance does not have the same rewards, but I have offered beggars to join me at lunch when I worked in downtown Portland and few ever took me up on it.

 

My concern for my own desires makes me want to have fair dealings with others, and rewarding relationships, but that doesn't mean it's solely financial. As I mentioned in another thread every person has the right to expend their efforts how they see fit, whether it's for income or for entertainment or something else.

 

If it is selfish to resent being forced to volunteer, then we've got a few more rounds of definition refinement to do.

[dsayers]

What are you talking about? Behaviors that are moral are binding upon another person but do not violate their property rights. How is not violating the property rights of others selfish?

 

Morality begins with self-ownership and universalizing that to everybody owns themselves. That means 7 billion people that you recognize that you have no claim over. How is accepting that you only own 1/7 billion of people selfish?

 

Is it that you can't answer these or you won't?

[JeanPaul]

Like him, you're misrepresenting the chain of causality. If I cannot convince somebody that 2+2=4, that's not a reflection upon me. His parents would've been the ones that taught him that 2+2=5 is dogmatic, or exposed him to those who did, or generally did not instill the capability to arrive at what 2+2= for himself. If you'll look again, you can see that from the very beginning, he had his prejudices and an unwillingness to alter them if they were revealed to be flawed in any way. To then later claim that others are responsible for his closed-mindedness is misdirection.

If you cannot convince someone that 2+2=4, then, you must not be a good teacher. Besides, I was always a good learner.

[Grizwald]

Is it that you can't answer these or you won't?

 "Behaviors that are moral are binding upon another person but do not violate their property rights. How is not violating the property rights of others selfish?"

 

Binding how? What if that moral duty conflicts with my natural desire to take your property? Property rights might be a natural and objective fact, that I own what I create and thus is naturally mine. But that tells me nothing about what I should do with your property. Should I take your property or not take your property and why?

 

"How is accepting that you only own 1/7 billion of people selfish?"

 

Technically claiming ownership of that one person is still selfish since that one person is yourself. Not saying it is a good or bad thing though.

[dsayers]

Stating a fact or even just an objective claim is not selfish, even if you benefit from it. In the context of self-ownership (and therefore property rights) being valid, how can you claim to not know what to do about the property of others and why?

 

Binding how?

 

If I make use of your car, it is binding upon you because you cannot make use of your car at the same time that I am. If I make use of my car, this is not binding upon you. If I'm in the same room as you and I take a drink, this is not binding upon you. If I'm in the same room as you and I yell, this is binding upon you. Does this answer your question?

[JeanPaul]

And if I publish what you wrote under my name on my website, is it binding?

[Grizwald]

Stating a fact or even just an objective claim is not selfish, even if you benefit from it. In the context of self-ownership (and therefore property rights) being valid, how can you claim to not know what to do about the property of others and why?

 

Let me distinguish between what I'm asking and saying. This is a fact: my property belongs to me. But my question is should my property belong to me? And why?

 

" If I'm in the same room as you and I yell, this is binding upon you."

 

I still don't understand. You said earlier that moral behavior is binding while not interfering with property rights. And I agree that moral behavior must be binding, otherwise it cannot be debated as immoral. But then why is respect for property rights morally good? Is there any situation in which I can interfere with someones property rights (involuntarily on their part) and in doing so behave morally? 

[dsayers]

And if I publish what you wrote under my name on my website, is it binding?

 

When I write something, I'm taking an idea from inside my head and putting it into your head. What you do with your copy of that idea has no bearing on me whatsoever. I cannot see how anybody would think it could be binding unless they started from the presumption that ideas can be owned. But this has been addressed for you so many times recently. Do you think that I think that if I address your "intellectual property" misgivings a 10th time, it will have a differing outcome from attempts 1-9?