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.

Morality

If there were only one thing I could leave to this world it would be this: my definition of morality. This definition has laid the foundation for each criticism of ‘objectivism’ made in previous posts, and it has informed each of my proposed solutions. It is based on simple principles yet it is all encompassing. Ultimately this definition goes beyond the scope of objectivism entirely and provides the overarching guidance needed for that and any other philosophy. I also believe it is a definition which could be practically and beneficially implemented in the life of every rational individual.

My definition is the following:

All actions with immediate positive results are moral, unless those actions decrease the chances of humanity’s long term survival.

All actions with immediate negative results are immoral, unless those actions are necessary to increase the chances of humanity’s long term survival.

(For this definition “immediate positive results” and “immediate negative results” should be taken literally and should be completely intuitive: if the action makes you smile it is positive, if the action makes you (or anyone else) frown it is negative.)

While it may not seem profound, I believe this definition is absolutely correct and is a major improvement over the predominately religious and generally vague sense of morality prevalent in US culture. It provides basic guidelines for all actions, and it does not depend on any religious or spiritual belief.

-Humanity’s Long Term Survival-

The chain of thought that led to this definition is the direct result of a question I posed to myself: “Since there is no god, is there also no absolute morality?”

I was sure there was such thing as ‘absolute right’ and ‘absolute wrong’ but it was difficult to isolate the underlying justification for this judgment of right and wrong. I also realized that any determination of an action’s morality depended somewhat on a measure of time. One could argue that in a long enough time frame the results of almost any action will be erased, making that action neither moral nor immoral, but I knew this logic was somehow flawed. Conversely, one could argue that only the immediate results of an action were important and any consideration of the future was unnecessary, I knew this reasoning was incomplete as well.

The breakthrough in my thinking came when I realized one key concept: the survival of the human race is not guaranteed. Extinction of humanity is a legitimate concern. This threat could come in the form of natural catastrophe or nuclear obliteration, in 1,000 years or 1,000,000, but someday humanity may find itself on the verge of annihilation. Fortification against this potential fate is a biological imperative.

I also concluded that the only thing constant about the human species is consciousness itself. Buildings will crumble and societies will fall, but whatever it is that makes us human will continue on… if we are smart enough to protect it. Humans are nothing more than chemicals, but we are amazing chemicals. We are chemicals that have somehow become aware of our own existence, and it is this awareness which makes humanity special and endlessly valuable. On a long enough time scale all other factors disappear and the only thing left with any importance is this: the survival of the amazing clustering of chemicals which is human consciousness.

It then became clear that the impact on human survival could be used as a ‘litmus test’ for the moral judgment of any action. So, this became the foundation of my morality. In general, any action that helps the chances of humanity’s survival is good, and any action that hurts the chances of humanity’s survival is bad.

However, I realized that the survival of humanity could not be the only factor in determining an action’s morality. To disregard the immediate impacts of an action is to disregard what makes life worth living. As individuals all we have is a set of experiences, and the need to make those experiences positive is as important as the imperative to continue the survival of our species.

-Immediate Results-

The focus on ‘immediate results’ is a cornerstone of this definition. And I believe this focus makes the definition superior to many other moral frameworks. By first looking at the immediate results one is able to avoid the type of 'ends justifies the means' logic which has plagued so many other philosophies. The most immediately positive method of reaching one’s goals must be used or else the actions taken can no longer be considered moral.

Most traditional judgments of morality rely almost entirely on the long term implications of the action in question. (i.e. Christian and other religious moralities are defined by the impact an action has on the afterlife. Socialist morality is defined by the impact an action has on society.) These moral frameworks do not place enough emphasis on the immediate results of an action. Yet, if an action makes you smile more than likely it is moral, and if it makes you frown more than likely it is immoral.

By focusing entirely on the future these moral frameworks open the door for a myriad of immoral actions to be preformed for the sake of the perceived outcomes. If a man thinks only of the future he may convince himself that horrific immediate results of his actions are somehow justified. This has been seen time and time again, anywhere from the Spanish Inquisition to Communist Russia, and this trend must stop. The ends do not always justify the means!

In contrast, within my definition a person must first examine the immediate results of his actions. For an action with immediate negative results to be considered moral that action must help the chances of humanity’s long term survival AND there must be no alternative method to reach that goal. Suddenly, acts of violence or even unpleasantness can no longer hide behind a supposed moral justification unless there is absolutely no other option.

Also, by using the ‘immediate results’ test, all good things in life are left alone unless there is a serious reason for those actions to be curbed. The idea that enjoying yourself is in any way immoral becomes ludicrous (unless of course your enjoyment somehow endangers humanity). This focus on immediate results ensures a proper order for examination of morality, and I believe it makes implementation of this definition more practical.

-Conclusion-

To summarize, in applying this definition an individual is forced to FIRST examine the immediate results of his actions, and THEN examine those actions’ long term impacts on humanity’s survival. By following this procedure this individual will be encouraged to BOTH strive for individual happiness and fulfillment AND improve the chances of humanity’s survival. I believe under most circumstances these two goals will be mutually supportive; very rarely will this moral code force an individual to act in a negative way to help humanity’s survival.

Here I would also like to mention that the objectivist philosophy fits perfectly into this definition of morality. I believe that living a lifestyle which conforms to the principles of objectivism is an excellent way to ensure one’s own happiness, which is clearly an ‘immediate positive result’. Also, I believe that the chances of humanity’s long term survival would be greatly improved if everyone were to adhere to most objectivist principles. So, under my definition of morality, living as a true objectivist is an inherently moral act. However, objectivism will always be secondary to this definition of morality. If instances arise where objectivism and this definition of morality are in conflict it is the definition of morality which should always be considered supreme.

Finally, I must admit that there is one large piece missing from this discussion of morality: it is by no means obvious which actions “decrease the chances of humanity’s long term survival” and which actions are “necessary to increase the chances of humanity’s long term survival”. But the fact that this piece is missing is a good thing! I believe that, more than anything else, what is needed in this world is more debate on how our actions impact the long term survival of humanity. At some point the philosophical musing must end and the discussion of practical implications of our actions must begin.

For me, that second stage of discussions begins here. And I hope this and the last several posts will help to illustrate the ideas that have laid the foundation for all of my future positions.

Response to T

For the most part I agree with the comments made by T. I believe that both he and I have nothing but good intentions for our philosophical musings. We are trying to find some sort of overarching guidance for our behavior that will help us make the tough decisions as they arrive in life. As such I also believe there is a common ground to be discovered in the instances where we do disagree. Our goals are likely the same and with effort our conclusions may become the same as well.

In one section of his comments T pointed out that both objectivists and environmentalists demonstrate irrational thinking when it comes to management the natural world.

In an especially good statement he sums up the inherent flaw of blindly rejecting the entire environmental movement: “…if the world is truly deteriorating and we are at fault, we are destroying ourselves and those around us. To do so would be irrational to our own continued existence and unjust to the existence of others.”

I believe the prevention of this ‘injustice to the existence of others’ is at the heart of environmentalism. More than anything else environmentalism strives to limit injustices perpetrated on fellow men.

He also points out, however, that environmentalists have perpetrated their own form of damaging irrationality. Without a doubt environmentalists are guilty of exaggeration, spectacle, and propaganda to get what they believe is correct. This is not an acceptable means of encouraging social change, regardless of the validity or falsehood of their conclusions. If the truths of your conclusions can not stand up on their own maybe the conclusions need further examination. Sometimes propaganda and exaggeration seem like the only way to grab the attention of an ambivalent public, but these methods undermine all credibility. The only moral means of public influence is dissemination of the truth, anything less only dooms your cause. The environmentalists may be learning this lesson the hard way, and at the expense of every person’s health and long term chances of survival.

T notes that the case of Global Warming is particularly tricky. No one is sure what will really happen, and the means of effectively abating the problem would be extremely drastic and expensive. If our survival does depend on these drastic measures there is no doubt that they are justified, but if the theory of Global Warming is incorrect we will have wasted countless resources on a hunch.

In the past I have decided my position on this issue by trusting the judgment of scientists and educators who I respect. In many ways I am still convinced of the danger and still I believe we must now start making changes to abate some of the effects of Global Warming. But this almost emotional conviction is not enough if I plan on pushing Global Warming as a political issue. Before I encourage legal measures to limit Carbon emissions I must be absolutely convinced by the science behind these assertions. In fact, before ANY person makes a decision to support or reject legal measures associated with this issue I believe it is their responsibility to seek out scientific support for why they feel one way or another.

The first step in this process is to examine the actual scientific research that is availabe to the public and to gather as much compelling evidence as possible. One logical first source for this inquiry is Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change by Frances Drake. Michael Crichton, an avowed skeptic, recommends this text in his novel State of Fear. He calls Drake’s book a “well-written overview for college students (that) can be read by any interested reader.” Reading Drake’s book will be my first step in solidifying my position, and I think any other concerned person should begin a similar route of inquiry.

I hope T, and the many people like him, are actively seeking out information about the Global Warming issue, and I hope they will not let the misrepresentations of environmentalists detract from the serious possibility that our current behavior may be responsible for a problem that would be devastating for our children.