Response to Manny
The post by Manny is an excellent example of what I’ve found wrong with ‘objectivist’ thought. His comments display all the symptoms that I alluded to earlier and those symptoms must now be addressed. He stands on a pulpit of supposed moral superiority and passes down his dogma. But I have to wonder, to what extent has Manny truly scrutinized the morality of his supported actions? I feel compelled to go point by point through his comments and examine where I believe he has gone astray.
-Environmentalism-
To begin, his claims about environmentalism demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding what environmentalism, or at least the sub-category of sustainable developmentalism, actually stands for. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to choose between their own survival and the happiness of people 100 years from now. The primary concern of true environmentalism is, and has always been, the health, safety and happiness of the people who are alive today. It is true however that environmentalism acknowledges that in 100 years people will exist, and environmentalism does indeed take the impacts on these future individuals into consideration. But this consideration for future generations is not made out of a sense of altruism, as Manny implies, this consideration is made out of selfish need to ensure the survival of one’s own progeny while adhering to basic principles of justice. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to sacrifice for the future, but it realizes that it would be immoral to require that the individuals of the future sacrifice for us.
As an environmentalist I may live my life in whatever way I see fit, using my resources in whatever manner I deem most valuable, but I may not allow my actions to impinge on the health, safety or survival of anyone else, present or future. I do this to satisfy my own selfish desire to have my children and grandchildren live in a clean safe world, and in acceptance of the fact that any attack on the health and safety of others is inherently immoral.
I see no reason why this definition of environmentalism would not be supported by any objectivist, it is simply a statement of beliefs which they supposedly adhere to already. The question of which actions are damaging to others is certainly open to debate, but to reject the environmentalist viewpoint outright is simply misguided and, dare I say it, irrational. If an objectivist were to examine every environmental issue on its own merits, on a case by case basis, I believe he would find the adverse impact his actions have on others to be quite significant. And while it may be an inconvenience, or it may hurt profits, I believe he would conclude that it is our moral obligation to tread on this world as lightly as possible. I simply hope that rational individuals will no longer throw out an argument for a potentially beneficial policy simply because it is supported by environmentalists. If nothing else, I hope they consider the benefits they and their children could enjoy from a more sound environmental policy.
Interestingly, the issue Manny uses as an example, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, isn’t an environmental issue per se under this definition. There are no individuals whose health and safety would be directly damaged nor guaranteed by drilling for oil in ANWAR. This issue, as well as many other conservationist issues, is more correctly defined as a debate of economic value rather than a debate of moral obligation.
As it stands now ANWAR is owned by the US government, and so what is to be done with ANWAR is decided by the will of US citizens. We use our ‘majority rules’ system of governance, as flawed as it may be, to decide which we collectively value more, a slightly lower price for gasoline or a parcel of completely untouched wilderness. But aside from ownership, nothing of moral obligation really enters into the arguments over ANWAR. What we are actually talking about is what the land is worth to all of us as a whole, or at least to the majority of us. (I would like to point out here that our moral justification for ownership of this land is somewhat tenuous, as is the justification for our ownership of most land in the US, but that is a debate for another day.)
For me personally the benefits of drilling in ANWAR are not worth the costs, and fortunately the majority agrees with me for the time being. To come to this conclusion I have considered only my own personal happiness and welfare. Since the health and safety of others is not in danger, it is not a moral obligation for me to consider the wishes of anyone else. In fact, any altruistic consideration of other people’s desires would be immoral by objectivist standards. What I do consider is what would make me happier, a temporary a 10 cent per gallon reduction in the price of gasoline for a year or the indefinite survival of an untouched wilderness. To me 10 cents per gallon means practically nothing, but knowing that ANWAR will exist undisturbed throughout my lifetime and into the lifetime of my children brings me continual happiness.
To explain why an untouched ANWAR makes me happy, and for that matter why all wilderness areas make me happy, I must delve into the concept of ‘existence value.’ It is true that I may never see ANWAR with my own eyes, and that I may never receive economic benefit from its existence, yet to me it still has great value. Just knowing that it is there, knowing that it is being allowed to change and evolve as it has for millions of years, makes me happy. To interrupt the natural processes occurring in ANWAR, even in the slightest, would be a horrible loss, and it would be something that could never be undone. For those with a personal and selfish love of nature a cost like this is simply too high.
To best illustrate this type of ‘existence value’ I can use the analogy of a rare art collection, maybe a hypothetical collection of all the most exquisite Rembrandts. More than likely I would never have the chance to see this collection with my own eyes, yet like ANWAR, this collection of Rembrandts still has great value to me. It makes me happy to know these works exist as a testament to human achievement, and it makes me happy to know that they will exist for my children and grandchildren. If someone were to offer a 10 cent reduction in the price of gasoline in exchange for the destruction or desecration of these Rembrandts I would reject the offer immediately, for ANWAR my reaction is the same.
Certainly my desires for what to do with ANWAR would be modified by what could be offered in return. If drilling in ANWAR would provide the US with complete energy independence I would be forced to conclude that my personal benefit far outweighs the cost, however this is by no means the deal we have been offered. All we really have been offered is a temporary and ineffective Band-Aid to conceal the gaping wound which is our dependence on foreign oil. So, for the case of ANWAR, and for the issue of natural conservation in general, I urge all individuals to first consider what is most likely to bring happiness to themselves and to their children. Like me, Manny has admitted that a minor reduction in the price of gasoline wouldn’t make much of a difference to him. Yet he has made his decision for what to do with ANWAR based on what he thinks would help the person ‘scrapping for every penny.’ This altruistic consideration of the ‘poor man’, by his own objectivist standards, is immoral. And I would therefore advise Manny to think about how ANWAR could potentially make him and his children happy, not about what he believes would make the other guy happy. I think Ayn Rand would tell him the same.
-War-
In his comments Manny also touched on the topic of when military force is appropriate. My concerns with Manny’s sentiments, and with the sentiments aired by other objectivists, stem mainly from their lack of separation between the individual in a foreign country and the government of that country. If you view the government of a country as an accurate representation of every single individual in the population then the type of offensive military action supported by objectivists could be justified, but this is simply not the case. An individual in a country and the government of that country are not the same thing, and they may not be treated as if they were, to do so is a blatant rejection of the individualism that defines objectivism.
Following this individual-government homogenization Manny feels justified in aggressive and unprovoked military action against any irrational government and rejects the criticism that ‘innocents’ will be harmed by this action. Manny does admit that innocents do exist: “The only truly innocent person that exists in a country, is the one that morally opposes the government that is oppressing them.” But he refuses to believe that aggressive military action will hurt those ‘innocents’. He states that any ‘innocents’ should “welcome the US with open arms.” Well Manny, here is the flaw in this logic: aggressive military action is not the only way to force political change! Military action is too blunt a tool for the delicate and slow process of social change.
Aggressive and unprovoked military action does in fact hurt the ‘innocents’ that Manny describes because it forces a violent solution to a problem that could potentially be solved without violence. Our use of military might to force political change disrupts every non-violent form of resistance available to the individual that opposes his government and it brings a gruesome war into his home. If and when war is the only option this innocent might welcome our support, but as long as there is the slightest possibility of a non-violent political change this innocent individual is entitled to feel a certain amount of resentment toward our violent interference.
I do not pretend to understand all the forces that allow tyrannical regimes to stay in power. It appears that some nations simply have the perfect mixture of money, religion, history, tradition, and culture to permit obviously insane leaders to thrive. However, I do know that seemingly intractable conflicts can be resolved without resort to all-out war. Most significantly, the US ended the Cold War without firing a direct shot at the USSR. And I honestly believe that with enough time it will be possible to bring down any regime using simply our economic influence, the dissemination of information to their populations, and the subversive encouragement of political dissent.
Complete isolationism is not a solution, but military force should be used only in the most drastic of situations. We must limit our military intervention to those cases when our security is in imminent danger, or when egregious human atrocities are being committed. As I mentioned previously, maybe a good rule of thumb is to support only those wars you would be willing to fight in yourself.
Using these guidelines, and from an individualistic perspective, the choice to invade Iraq was questionable at best. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to our security, and, while horrible, the government of Saddam Hussein did not commit humanitarian violations on the level that we see in several other countries around the world. The decision to invade was made hastily, and I think the botched results show exactly how poorly thought-out the action was. Iraq was still at a point where non-violent action could have had an impact, and in this case to resort to violence was pre-mature.
A more ideal manner of bringing lasting change to Iraq would have been through selective economic and cultural engagement. The more we could affect who got the money and information the more we could affect who had the power. Unfortunately this selective economic engagement was impossible as long as the US depended on Saddam’s only leverage, oil. As long as we are forced to buy foreign oil we have little control over where our money goes, and where our money can be withheld. Therefore, in the case of Iraq, our national security would have been much better served by using the 100 billion plus dollars spent on invasion for developing alternative energy solutions, and finally loosening the grip of foreign oil dependence.
Regardless of the impact on the Iraqi people, I feel that my own self interests have been compromised by this military action. Our invasion of Iraq was morally questionable and tactically misguided. I feel no safer now that Saddam is out of power, and I feel nervous about the fact that our military is stretched too thin to deal with other potentially devastating threats like Iran and North Korea. If instead of invading Iraq we had made some serious investments into national security and energy independence we would be in a much better situation right now, and I, personally, would feel much safer.
Along with these arguments I also tend to question Manny’s and other ‘objectivists’’ un-wavering and slightly jingoistic allegiance to the actions of the US government. If you are searching for irrationality you need look no further than our own back yard. Last I recall our head of state still claimed to believe in a mythical and all knowing being that takes particular interest in his foreign policy decisions and church attendance. And while the US may be one of the more rational countries in the world, I do not see how that would give us the moral justification to invade others because they don’t agree with us. To the extent that they cause us no harm, all individuals have the right to be somewhat irrational if they so desire.
The military option is a powerful and sometimes effective one, but it should not be used until all other alternatives have been exhausted. In the cases when our security is directly threatened we may take defensive, not aggressive, action, and in the cases when humanitarian atrocities are being committed we may be compelled to intervene, but no other justifications are sufficient. The turmoil caused by war brings with it a decreased level of security for individuals throughout the world, and to not realize this is simply irrational.
-Environmentalism-
To begin, his claims about environmentalism demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding what environmentalism, or at least the sub-category of sustainable developmentalism, actually stands for. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to choose between their own survival and the happiness of people 100 years from now. The primary concern of true environmentalism is, and has always been, the health, safety and happiness of the people who are alive today. It is true however that environmentalism acknowledges that in 100 years people will exist, and environmentalism does indeed take the impacts on these future individuals into consideration. But this consideration for future generations is not made out of a sense of altruism, as Manny implies, this consideration is made out of selfish need to ensure the survival of one’s own progeny while adhering to basic principles of justice. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to sacrifice for the future, but it realizes that it would be immoral to require that the individuals of the future sacrifice for us.
As an environmentalist I may live my life in whatever way I see fit, using my resources in whatever manner I deem most valuable, but I may not allow my actions to impinge on the health, safety or survival of anyone else, present or future. I do this to satisfy my own selfish desire to have my children and grandchildren live in a clean safe world, and in acceptance of the fact that any attack on the health and safety of others is inherently immoral.
I see no reason why this definition of environmentalism would not be supported by any objectivist, it is simply a statement of beliefs which they supposedly adhere to already. The question of which actions are damaging to others is certainly open to debate, but to reject the environmentalist viewpoint outright is simply misguided and, dare I say it, irrational. If an objectivist were to examine every environmental issue on its own merits, on a case by case basis, I believe he would find the adverse impact his actions have on others to be quite significant. And while it may be an inconvenience, or it may hurt profits, I believe he would conclude that it is our moral obligation to tread on this world as lightly as possible. I simply hope that rational individuals will no longer throw out an argument for a potentially beneficial policy simply because it is supported by environmentalists. If nothing else, I hope they consider the benefits they and their children could enjoy from a more sound environmental policy.
Interestingly, the issue Manny uses as an example, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, isn’t an environmental issue per se under this definition. There are no individuals whose health and safety would be directly damaged nor guaranteed by drilling for oil in ANWAR. This issue, as well as many other conservationist issues, is more correctly defined as a debate of economic value rather than a debate of moral obligation.
As it stands now ANWAR is owned by the US government, and so what is to be done with ANWAR is decided by the will of US citizens. We use our ‘majority rules’ system of governance, as flawed as it may be, to decide which we collectively value more, a slightly lower price for gasoline or a parcel of completely untouched wilderness. But aside from ownership, nothing of moral obligation really enters into the arguments over ANWAR. What we are actually talking about is what the land is worth to all of us as a whole, or at least to the majority of us. (I would like to point out here that our moral justification for ownership of this land is somewhat tenuous, as is the justification for our ownership of most land in the US, but that is a debate for another day.)
For me personally the benefits of drilling in ANWAR are not worth the costs, and fortunately the majority agrees with me for the time being. To come to this conclusion I have considered only my own personal happiness and welfare. Since the health and safety of others is not in danger, it is not a moral obligation for me to consider the wishes of anyone else. In fact, any altruistic consideration of other people’s desires would be immoral by objectivist standards. What I do consider is what would make me happier, a temporary a 10 cent per gallon reduction in the price of gasoline for a year or the indefinite survival of an untouched wilderness. To me 10 cents per gallon means practically nothing, but knowing that ANWAR will exist undisturbed throughout my lifetime and into the lifetime of my children brings me continual happiness.
To explain why an untouched ANWAR makes me happy, and for that matter why all wilderness areas make me happy, I must delve into the concept of ‘existence value.’ It is true that I may never see ANWAR with my own eyes, and that I may never receive economic benefit from its existence, yet to me it still has great value. Just knowing that it is there, knowing that it is being allowed to change and evolve as it has for millions of years, makes me happy. To interrupt the natural processes occurring in ANWAR, even in the slightest, would be a horrible loss, and it would be something that could never be undone. For those with a personal and selfish love of nature a cost like this is simply too high.
To best illustrate this type of ‘existence value’ I can use the analogy of a rare art collection, maybe a hypothetical collection of all the most exquisite Rembrandts. More than likely I would never have the chance to see this collection with my own eyes, yet like ANWAR, this collection of Rembrandts still has great value to me. It makes me happy to know these works exist as a testament to human achievement, and it makes me happy to know that they will exist for my children and grandchildren. If someone were to offer a 10 cent reduction in the price of gasoline in exchange for the destruction or desecration of these Rembrandts I would reject the offer immediately, for ANWAR my reaction is the same.
Certainly my desires for what to do with ANWAR would be modified by what could be offered in return. If drilling in ANWAR would provide the US with complete energy independence I would be forced to conclude that my personal benefit far outweighs the cost, however this is by no means the deal we have been offered. All we really have been offered is a temporary and ineffective Band-Aid to conceal the gaping wound which is our dependence on foreign oil. So, for the case of ANWAR, and for the issue of natural conservation in general, I urge all individuals to first consider what is most likely to bring happiness to themselves and to their children. Like me, Manny has admitted that a minor reduction in the price of gasoline wouldn’t make much of a difference to him. Yet he has made his decision for what to do with ANWAR based on what he thinks would help the person ‘scrapping for every penny.’ This altruistic consideration of the ‘poor man’, by his own objectivist standards, is immoral. And I would therefore advise Manny to think about how ANWAR could potentially make him and his children happy, not about what he believes would make the other guy happy. I think Ayn Rand would tell him the same.
-War-
In his comments Manny also touched on the topic of when military force is appropriate. My concerns with Manny’s sentiments, and with the sentiments aired by other objectivists, stem mainly from their lack of separation between the individual in a foreign country and the government of that country. If you view the government of a country as an accurate representation of every single individual in the population then the type of offensive military action supported by objectivists could be justified, but this is simply not the case. An individual in a country and the government of that country are not the same thing, and they may not be treated as if they were, to do so is a blatant rejection of the individualism that defines objectivism.
Following this individual-government homogenization Manny feels justified in aggressive and unprovoked military action against any irrational government and rejects the criticism that ‘innocents’ will be harmed by this action. Manny does admit that innocents do exist: “The only truly innocent person that exists in a country, is the one that morally opposes the government that is oppressing them.” But he refuses to believe that aggressive military action will hurt those ‘innocents’. He states that any ‘innocents’ should “welcome the US with open arms.” Well Manny, here is the flaw in this logic: aggressive military action is not the only way to force political change! Military action is too blunt a tool for the delicate and slow process of social change.
Aggressive and unprovoked military action does in fact hurt the ‘innocents’ that Manny describes because it forces a violent solution to a problem that could potentially be solved without violence. Our use of military might to force political change disrupts every non-violent form of resistance available to the individual that opposes his government and it brings a gruesome war into his home. If and when war is the only option this innocent might welcome our support, but as long as there is the slightest possibility of a non-violent political change this innocent individual is entitled to feel a certain amount of resentment toward our violent interference.
I do not pretend to understand all the forces that allow tyrannical regimes to stay in power. It appears that some nations simply have the perfect mixture of money, religion, history, tradition, and culture to permit obviously insane leaders to thrive. However, I do know that seemingly intractable conflicts can be resolved without resort to all-out war. Most significantly, the US ended the Cold War without firing a direct shot at the USSR. And I honestly believe that with enough time it will be possible to bring down any regime using simply our economic influence, the dissemination of information to their populations, and the subversive encouragement of political dissent.
Complete isolationism is not a solution, but military force should be used only in the most drastic of situations. We must limit our military intervention to those cases when our security is in imminent danger, or when egregious human atrocities are being committed. As I mentioned previously, maybe a good rule of thumb is to support only those wars you would be willing to fight in yourself.
Using these guidelines, and from an individualistic perspective, the choice to invade Iraq was questionable at best. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to our security, and, while horrible, the government of Saddam Hussein did not commit humanitarian violations on the level that we see in several other countries around the world. The decision to invade was made hastily, and I think the botched results show exactly how poorly thought-out the action was. Iraq was still at a point where non-violent action could have had an impact, and in this case to resort to violence was pre-mature.
A more ideal manner of bringing lasting change to Iraq would have been through selective economic and cultural engagement. The more we could affect who got the money and information the more we could affect who had the power. Unfortunately this selective economic engagement was impossible as long as the US depended on Saddam’s only leverage, oil. As long as we are forced to buy foreign oil we have little control over where our money goes, and where our money can be withheld. Therefore, in the case of Iraq, our national security would have been much better served by using the 100 billion plus dollars spent on invasion for developing alternative energy solutions, and finally loosening the grip of foreign oil dependence.
Regardless of the impact on the Iraqi people, I feel that my own self interests have been compromised by this military action. Our invasion of Iraq was morally questionable and tactically misguided. I feel no safer now that Saddam is out of power, and I feel nervous about the fact that our military is stretched too thin to deal with other potentially devastating threats like Iran and North Korea. If instead of invading Iraq we had made some serious investments into national security and energy independence we would be in a much better situation right now, and I, personally, would feel much safer.
Along with these arguments I also tend to question Manny’s and other ‘objectivists’’ un-wavering and slightly jingoistic allegiance to the actions of the US government. If you are searching for irrationality you need look no further than our own back yard. Last I recall our head of state still claimed to believe in a mythical and all knowing being that takes particular interest in his foreign policy decisions and church attendance. And while the US may be one of the more rational countries in the world, I do not see how that would give us the moral justification to invade others because they don’t agree with us. To the extent that they cause us no harm, all individuals have the right to be somewhat irrational if they so desire.
The military option is a powerful and sometimes effective one, but it should not be used until all other alternatives have been exhausted. In the cases when our security is directly threatened we may take defensive, not aggressive, action, and in the cases when humanitarian atrocities are being committed we may be compelled to intervene, but no other justifications are sufficient. The turmoil caused by war brings with it a decreased level of security for individuals throughout the world, and to not realize this is simply irrational.
posted by -E at 4:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home