THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT
How to debate, argue, and discuss points as an Objectivist.

Introduction
The five fundamental categories of Philosophy
Building agreement on the fundamentals
Governmental Regulations and the Objectivist Stance
Politics
Ethics
The Good and Bad premises of regulators
    Good premise #1: Wealth is Good.
    Good premise #2: Negative Individual Rights
        As aside on Positive individual rights
 Objectivist arguments against regulations
    The Beauty of the US constitution
    The challenge is obvious
Utilitarianism
Altruism
Ethical summary
Epistemology
   Objectivist Epistemology
   Regulator epistemology
Metaphysics
   Aristotelianism/Objectivism:
   Platonism
Conclusion

index

Introduction

The tremendous power of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's thought is that it deals with fundamentals. All complex ideas are built on top of, and out of, more fundamental concepts or premises. When we deal with the more fundamental concepts, and especially the MOST fundamental concepts and/or premises, we deal with the heart of any matter; the most critical parts; the most essential aspects of an argument. This is the power of Objectivism.

In this essay, I will discuss the appropriateness of governmental regulation of the economy as a jumping off point for The Ultimate Argument. It is an interesting topic, and serves as well as many others to bring out the standard Objectivist position on most every issue and in every argument. I could have used any one of a hundred issues and ended up with the same essay, but this particular topic has real world effects which have far reaching consequences.

As I go through this argument, I will be talking about how to think about topics in general, especially the methods of arguing from an Objectivist stance, more than any specific argument to make a specific point. You may have heard the phrase, "if you give someone a fish, you feed them for a day. If you teach someone to fish, you feed them for the rest of their life."

This essay is designed to teach you how to think like an Objectivist rather than feeding you an Objectivist argument on any particular issue. Your ability to apply the Objectivist stance in argumentation might have an effect on thousands of arguments you will have throughout your life and prepare you to demonstrate a coherent philosophical position to the world. This, however, will give you a power that will win you adherents to your positions and cause people to start to question and to get clear on the fundamentals. This is valuable.

We will begin by summarizing the 5 fundamental categories of philosophy as laid out by the ancient Greeks and the basic Objectivist stance in each category. We will then examine: 1) the stance of people who argue for regulations in each category; 2) the fundamental contradictions in their stance; and 3) the Objectivist challenges and solutions to those contradictions.

index

The five fundamental categories of Philosophy

The five fundamental categories of Philosophy in order of importance and hierarchy, starting with the most fundamental and ending with the most significant, are:

Metaphysics: What is the ultimate nature of realty? Is it a flux, or does it have a nature?

Epistemology: How do we know what is true? How do we gain knowledge? How do we think? Can we know anything? Do we use reason or feelings to determine truth?

Ethics: What is the proper course of action for human beings? What is right, good, and moral? Do we live for our own happiness or for the happiness of others?

Politics: How can people best relate interpersonally? What is the proper organization of people in society? What rights, if any, do individuals have? How can we best extend ethics to interpersonal relationships? In terms of governing people, is it the government's job to defend people against theft, violence, and fraud? Is it the government's responsibility to provide creature comforts to its citizens?

Aesthetics: What is the beautiful?

The Objectivist stances in each category are as follows:

Metaphysics: Existence exists - Objective reality;

Epistemology: Reason;

Ethics: Rational self-interest;

Politics: Laissez-faire Capitalism;

Aesthetics: The selective recreation of ideal reality.

(The last category is the least used in Objectivist thought. It is built hierarchically on the four fundamental categories, but is underdeveloped in objectivism, and non-essential in the following argument.)

index

Building agreement on the fundamentals

These are the fundamental building blocks of philosophy upon which all arguments and philosophical positions are built. Until and unless these fundamentals are clearly agreed upon, we cannot get anywhere in the more significant, subtle points. If we disagree with our interlocutor about the fundamentals, the discussion breaks down. Given different fundamentals, we will have valid points that the other person will not recognize as valid, while they will have conclusions given their fundamentals that we will not recognize as valid.

It is like playing a game by different rules. You may think you have won a point, but the other team can make an "illegal" move according to your rules, and you get no points on their scoreboard.

This is always a challenge when people from different philosophical positions enter a discussion, but it is the central issue when an Objectivist is in a discussion. Objectivists deal with this issue up front and centrally.

Whenever you have a discussion with someone from an Objectivist stance, you'll always come down to fundamentals. It is for this reason that Rand was infamous for being able to take any statement someone made while discussing some trivial matter and expositing on their ultimate view of reality and humanity's place in that reality. They talked about why they liked a movie, and she spoke about their metaphysical premises. She always took the argument to fundamentals because 99% of the time, that was where the mistakes in the other person's reasoning applied. She was famous for the line: "Check your premises," which means: "What are your fundamental views of the universe out of which all your arguments come?"

There are two basic areas of argument when discussing the appropriateness of ethical and political actions.

The first is fundamental and philosophical: "Is it right to do this? Is it good? Is it consistent with reality? What are the further moral and political implications of a decision of this sort?"

The second is practical and secondary: "Will the proposed action actually accomplish the objective? Is it an effective action? How will this affect related variables?" "Will it create more problems than it solves?"

Both arguments can and should be used against the idea of regulations. However, dealing with the more fundamental question of ethics is typically the most appropriate Objectivist focus for three reasons:

1) The fundamental considerations (reality and morality) are typically where the meat of the argument is;

2) The philosophical issues are the place that Objectivism has something new to add to the discussion. One does not need to come to Objectivists to find hundreds of excellent texts and arguments discussing how such things as regulations cause problems and reduce production. The case for free markets is already more than adequately made on the practical side; and

3) Until you have the agreement on the fundamentals down, the other person can change the rules of the game as described above.

So rule #1 in arguing as an Objectivist: always deal with the fundamental, philosophical side of the argument before dealing with the practical side of the argument.

index

Governmental Regulations and the Objectivist Stance

The question of whether or not government regulation in some aspect of the economy is legitimate or not is a recurring and powerful political reality. No matter what regulation is being proposed, The Ultimate Argument is the same. This is the power of dealing with fundamentals. Let us begin with the category at hand when talking about regulations: Politics.

index

Politics

The idea of business regulations implies that a government has the right and responsibility to set rules for business. Is this appropriate or inappropriate? Is it fair or unfair? Is it just or unjust? Where does this idea come from? What are the implicit premises? From what fundamental stances does it stem?

Business is the realm of trade. Trade is the process of two people choosing to exchange possessions or labor by their own judgment and rational thought. When the government regulates business or trade, it regulates how people make choices with their possessions and time/energy/labor. In other words, in a regulated economy, you do not have the choice to interrelate with others by mutual choice, but only within the rules that the government circumscribes. It is in effect saying, "We do not feel that you are competent to think in this area. Because of this, we, the government, will do your thinking for you and tell you what you can and cannot choose to trade, how much of it you can trade, who you can trade with, and where you can trade it."

This is the fundamental political issue of regulations: Does the government have the right to make decisions for people in opposition to their own rational choices about how to trade their goods/possessions/money/time/energy/ideas, or not?

It is on this issue that the argument must be fought. If this issue is not distinguished, and the idea that "the government can and should make decisions for individuals to 'protect' or 'assist' them" is not denied validity, the people who say that regulation is necessary will ALWAYS win in logic. If they start with the idea that regulation is appropriate in any one case, they can extend that same logic to every case.

Further, if one regulation is possible to rationally justify, then there is no logical reason not to have complete state control of the economy. There are a lot of inconsistent, non-logical reasons to have a mixed economy, just no logically consistent ones. Once one has conceded that the government has that right and responsibility to make decisions for consumers, the game is over, and it is just a matter of time before the government runs everything, barring popular revolt. See Fredrich A Hayek's classic Road To Serfdom for an academic demonstration or Atlas Shrugged for a dramatic example of how this slippery slope works.

This is one of the reasons that Marx argued that Communism was the most rational form of government. Given the premise that governments know better than individuals how they should live their lives, he is correct. Inaccurate and irrational premises lead to inaccurate and irrational conclusions, even with the best logic.

Of course, the idea that the government knows better than the people, and it has the right and responsibility to make the decisions for the people, it is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is built on the principle that people are allowed to trade with whomever they want by mutual consent, in any way they want, wherever, and whenever they want, as long as there is no physical force or fraud involved. It states that the government's only function in the market is to prohibit others from using force or fraud in the process of trading. This is the Objectivist political stance, also known as laissez-faire capitalism.

index

Ethics

The question then becomes: Which stance is right? Which stance promotes the "good?" Which stance is the most moral? Should governments make decisions for people, or should the people make them for themselves? By what standard do we make such a choice?

Notice that the field of politics automatically defaults to the field of ethics. Right and wrong (vs. correct or incorrect), moral and immoral, should and "should not" are ethical concepts because they presume a standard of good and bad against which something can be judged.

In light of this, if we are to understand the justifications for the political stances of regulators and Objectivists, we must examine the ethical underpinnings of both sides. Namely: a) the idea that government has the right and responsibility to interfere with people's decisions to rationally determine for themselves what is in their own self interest in terms of trading with others; and b) the underlying premises of the idea that people should be allowed to choose for themselves.

So, what are the underlying ethics of these two positions? What are the standards against which a regulatory policy is judged good or bad?

First, not all the ideas involved in justifying regulation are "bad" according to an Objectivist. There are, in fact, principles involved in the idea of regulation that are "good" according to an Objectivist; they are good according to objective reality and further the nature of human beings. These particular ideas are not the problem. It is the irrational, mistaken ideas that cause the problem. It is the mixture of these good and bad principles and standards that confuses the issue and causes the debate In fact, if it were not for the good/true principles included in the argument for regulation, the mistakes would be so obvious that the idea of regulations would not be considered a valid option. It is the perversion of the good in service of the bad that causes the problems.

(As an aside, the bad arguments of regulators "ride" on the goodness of the good arguments and the premises of regulators. The bad is the parasite of the good and can only survive when connected to the good. As Rand reminds us, evil is impotent. The good premises and arguments survive on their own. They are the producers. The faulty arguments fall apart on their own. They are the looters and moochers. As Objectivists, all we need to do to "win an argument" or destroy evil, is to expose it to the light of consciousness and rational thought. All we have to do is separate out the good arguments and premises from the faulty ones; the sound from the false; the producers from the looters/moochers. When evil is brought to light and human beings see it for what it really is, they naturally shun the false and evil, because it is so unsightly.)

index

The Good and Bad premises of regulators

In quick summary, regulations use two good and two bad (two correct and two incorrect, two rational and two irrational) ethical premises to justify their demand for regulations. I will list them, then examine them and how they are used in the argument for and against regulations.

The good, correct, rational premises:

1) It is good to have wealth;

2) It is bad for people to be hurt or have their wealth taken from them by force or fraud.

The bad, incorrect, irrational premises:

1) Utilitarianism: which holds that he principle, "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the criteria and standard against which to judge the morality of a political decision;

2) Altruism: which holds that "selfless service" to others is the ultimate good; that self-sacrifice is moral, selfishness is immoral.

Again, the good premises are fundamental to the regulators being able to use the bad premises. Without them, regulators cannot consistently use the bad ones to do anything. Without the good premises to parasite on, the bad ones are without force.

In order to differentiate the good from the bad, and expose the bad for what they are, let's look at the goodness which the regulators ride and parasite on.

index

Good premise #1: Wealth is Good.

Regulations are argued to increase the overall wealth of a particular group of people, usually "Americans." It is argued, "If we can only control how people trade in this one area, our country will be richer, have higher wages, have more access to quality products, have more jobs . . . etc." We might ask: "Why is this 'good' or 'better'?" The answer: Having wealth is good. This is one of the premises upon which the arguments for regulation are built. Having wealth is good. This is the emotional/rational point that human beings intuitively grasp as true.

True it is. Wealth makes human beings more powerful, more able to affect the world around them, more able to create their internal vision in external reality. Wealth frees a human being to think and rationally choose courses of action with the least hindrances and fears of survival. Wealth equals increased freedom. All other things being equal, the more wealth a person has, the happier they will be. Happiness, or non-contradictory joy, is the standard of value. This is good and proper to human beings and central to their nature. In fact, happiness thus understood is the ultimate standard of good and morality for Objectivists. This is also the central good which the regulators parasite on to push their contradictory politics.

(Notice that we are not addressing the practical concerns here, namely: "Will regulations actually increase the wealth of the group in question?" They will not, but that is a secondary issue. Again, we are discussing the ethics here because without the ethics supporting the regulations, the whole position falls apart. Further, even if we win on the practical side and thoroughly demonstrate that regulations actually decrease the overall wealth, as has been demonstrated countless times, many people will still argue for it on ethical grounds. This is why all the incredibly powerful and almost indisputable arguments for the free-market haven't gotten us anywhere even though they are correct.)

index

Good premise #2: Negative Individual Rights

Once we have established the ethical point that having wealth is good, those who favor regulation go on to posit the second (true) ethical reason which the idea of regulation parasites on. It is the simple opposite of the first positive standard for morality: since it is good for a human being to have wealth and non-contradictory joy or happiness, it is wrong/bad/evil to take that away from that human being by force or fraud. This simple moral truth is central to the nature of human beings. It is the ultimate standard of evil and immorality for Objectivists.

This fundamental moral premise is typically referred to as "negative individual rights." It is the right of each individual to go unmolested by their neighbor and to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. John Stuart Mill's principle of "no harm" in On Liberty is the classic treatise on this subject (though Mill is inconsistent and contradictory in his proposed application).

index

An aside on Positive individual rights

As a critical aside: "Positive individual rights" [Isaiah Berlin, etc.] on the other hand, propose that people have not only the right to be unmolested, but the right to GOODS. They argue that people have the right to food, housing, medical care, a fulfilling job, recreation, etc. In this jumble of contradictions, the government is supposed to "provide" the people with these things if and when they "cannot" earn them themselves. The list of what humans have the "right" to be "provided" for them is endless, depending on the moxie of the person speaking. The list given above is only part of JFK's election platform.

Paraphrasing John Galt: "Who is going to produce the goods so that the government can 'provide' them? Blank out." In order for one person to receive goods they have not traded an equivalent value for, those goods must come from someone who does not receive some such equivalent value. This can be accomplished voluntarily and is called charity. Otherwise, it must be done by force and it is called theft, appropriation, regulation.

Notice that the very concept of "positive rights" is inherently contradictory. The concept of positive rights is built on and presumes the concept of negative rights. Once people get the goods [positive rights], they are supposed to be able to enjoy them without fear of having them being taken away [negative rights]. The people who gain the positive rights have their negative rights protected, but those who are forced to give up their property to others have their negative rights violated.

The crucial point here is that the granting of "positive rights" to some people ALWAYS involves the infringement, denial, or sacrifice of other people's "negative rights." Since it is immoral to violate people's negative rights to life, liberty, and property, all positive rights are built on immorality.

How Regulators use negative individual rights

Regulators use this objectively ethical principle of "no harm" or "negative individual rights" by arguing that: "If we can only control how people trade in this one area, we can reduce the amount of unfair dealings, protect jobs, reduce unemployment . . . etc." They insist that through regulations they will be able to protect "somebody" from "something." Again, they are hitching onto a real moral principle (it is wrong to take someone's wealth and/or hurt them) and riding it to their chosen ends, which are regulations.

index

Objectivist arguments against regulations

So far, it sounds like regulators have a good case and use principles that Objectivists agree with. Obviously it is good for people to have wealth and to have it protected from force and fraud. Why don't Objectivists argue for more regulations?

1. The first ethical reason Objectivists do not argue for regulation of the market is that regulation is unnecessary to further protect the principles that "wealth is good" and theft/force/fraud is bad." These two fundamental ethical principles are already secure (at least in principle) by an objective system of law designed to protect just these "rights." It is for this reason that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights was written. It protects our rights to life, liberty and property (wealth). This law is backed by a court system/police to enforce those laws. This system of objective law offers a means of redress for the use of physical force, threat of the use of physical force, or fraud in business dealings. If there are any changes that need to be made, it is not to add more regulations and restrictions to this canon, but to more adequately define the laws such that the government cannot infringe on those laws anymore than the thug downtown.

index

The Beauty of the US constitution

This system was created by our founding fathers and codified into our United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. They risked their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to create such a system. It was designed (as anyone who actually reads it can easily experience) to allow the maximum freedom to each individual citizen to act in accordance with their own rational choices, and to prohibit government interference in those choices. We were free to trade and interact with whom we chose and however we chose to do so.

Hence, at the beginning of this nation, we find the purest example of Capitalism in the history of humankind, and as a result, a level of prosperity never before seen or imagined. Capitalism rests on the basic ethical idea that wealth/happiness is good, and theft/pain, is bad. It also adds the caveat that the individual has the right to enter into any trade they desire as long is it does not involve the use of physical force, the threat of physical force, and/or fraud. It says that it is moral for a human being to act in their own self interest, to make their own choices based on their own rational judgment, and immoral to force a person to act against their own judgment.

This is the freedom that made the United States of America the land of opportunity. This is the promise of freedom that people risked their lives just to get to, with no promise of anything but the opportunity to succeed by their own effort. In this environment, productivity and trading thrived and wealth soared. It was the most moral nation on earth, and its soaring wealth was a by-product of that morality.)

2. The second ethical reason that Objectivists argue against regulations is that regulations are ultimately backed by, and therefore expressions of, physical force. The unprovoked use of force from one human being to take the property of another is immoral. End of story.

3. The third and most essential reason that Objectivists argue against regulations is that human beings are volitional beings who must think and be able to act on those choices in order to survive. This is their nature and the foundation of an objective morality connected to reality. If they are not free to choose their own actions, they are hindered in their ability to survive and thrive, to fulfill their natural competency. That which takes away their ability to act on their own rational knowledge and conclusions (use of force or fraud) is immoral, and it thwarts human nature. This is the essential immoral act which every other immoral act contains.

The only justification for hindering their ability to act on their choices is if that action would apply force or fraud against another human and/or their possessions (see objective laws and negative individual rights above). As John Galt's speech ended, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine." A morality of rational self-interest (or selfishness) does not condone, but rather prohibits the use of physical force or fraud against other people except in self-defense..

The central concept in regulations is that the person engaging in any particular trade is not competent to make their own decisions. Regulations take away people's ability to enter into trades which they think are in their best interest. Hence, regulations are unjust and immoral. It's that simple.

4. The fourth and most obvious (though less essential) reason that Objectivists argue against regulations is that the regulators are contradictory in their suggested methods for supporting these moral and ethical principles of #1) wealth is good, and #2) hurting people and/or taking their wealth is bad.

The major challenge with regulating the market is in order to regulate any market, we MUST violate the two fundamental principles of ethics outlined above. The only way regulations (use of force in the market) can be used to increase one person or group's wealth, is to take that wealth from another person or group. End of story.

When regulators try to increase the wealth of one group, they reduce the wealth of another group. In order to achieve #1 (wealth is good) by regulation, they must violate #2 (hurting people and/or taking their wealth is bad). The same is true in reverse. When they try to use regulation to protect one group from being hurt or losing by having their wealth taken from them, they must reduce the profits of another group. They must violate #1 in order to achieve #2. In both cases, people who would freely choose by their own rational decision to enter a trade are prohibited from doing so, by force.

At this point, Objectivists point out that violating either of these principles is immoral. As the quote from the movie "Wargames" states succinctly: "It seems the only winning move is not to play." The only moral regulation is "laissez-faire" or "leave us alone!" Leave human beings alone to make their own choices and enjoy/suffer the consequences of those choices. Give them the freedom to pursue their own happiness by protecting their life and liberty. This is the process by which the human organism learns and develops itself.

Remember, regulations are just one of many examples of the governmental violation of ethical principles. The above reasoning can be applied to any and every interference into the free market, or free choices in any sphere of life.

index

The challenge is obvious

Again, the idea behind the public policy of regulation is that we can "increase the wealth of" or "protect a group of" people by controlling how they interact with another group of people. The challenge is that this permits the government to violate one person's happiness to facilitate another's.

In fact, this is typically understood. As with the progressive income tax, it is understood that the system is unfair to a group of people (specifically, those who have invested in their ability to provide greater value to the market and thus earn more money). This means that one person or group can be sacrificed in order to benefit another group; their happiness can be sacrificed for another's happiness. This is in fact what regulations are known to do, otherwise, there would be no discussion. If there are no down sides to an issue, then no debate is necessary.

In other words, the basic ethical principle of regulators is that the group they want to support or protect is more important than the other groups or people; and therefore, the less important group can be sacrificed to the more important group.

Since every regulation obviously violates one or both of the essential ethical principles (#1 wealth is good, and #2 hurting people and/or taking their wealth is bad) by sacrificing one group to another, and these ethical principles are used by regulators to justify their regulations, how do they manage to avoid this seemingly glaring contradiction? Two answers: Utilitarianism and Altruism.

In order to justify sacrificing one group or person to another group or person, regulators typically appeal to two related but distinct ethical principles, both of which are stringently decried by Objectivists for reasons stated below. Utilitarianism and Altruism.

index

Utilitarianism

First, let us examine Utilitarianism. Utilitarian morality asserts that the natural desire of human beings is to attempt to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Hence, a moral action, a "good" action, is one that creates the most pleasure and the least pain for an individual.

When we discuss how a person acts morally in an interpersonal or political context, the Utilitarian position is often fairly summarized in the statement that morality is "the greatest good for the greatest number" of people; or "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few." In common political parlance, this "good of the many" is referred to as the "common" or "public" good. In other words, Utilitarianism argues that the morality of a behavior should be judged by the amount of pleasure and/or pain it causes everyone involved. Hence, political legislation and regulations should be created with the intention to create the most pleasure for the most number of people with the least amount of pain for the least number of people.

At first glance, this would seem to be an attempt to use the best of both fundamental moral laws (wealth is good, and harm is bad) at one time. Because of this apparent goodness, variations of utilitarianism are commonly accepted as the moral system of choice by most non-Objectivists and public policy makers. However, the apparent morality of this position is only on the surface. When we look deeper, we find that there are tremendous challenges with this formulation of ethics.

The central challenge with the proposition of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the question: "What is the greatest good?" or even "What is 'good' or 'bad' in the first place?" If the "good" is the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain for the greatest number, how can we determine what actions will achieve that? What standard can we use to determine how much of whose pleasure and pain is "good"?

When examined, the utilitarianism equation is a complete floating abstraction, because what is pleasurable or painful for any one person is subjective. Since good is never grounded in absolute principles in utilitarianism, what is pleasurable and painful is a matter of opinion. There is nothing objectively good or bad in Utilitarianism. Because of this the question thus defaults to, "WHO decides or decrees what is the greatest good?" Since utilitarianism offers no legitimate method for answering this question, the answer has, in practice, always defaulted to the answer: "Whoever is in power."

This is an insurmountable problem for utilitarianism because how one rates the goodness or badness of any particular item is the foundation upon which all moral decisions are made. When Hitler was in power, he said that the good was what the Führer says is good. When Stalin was in power, he said that the good was what the council said was good; etc. Over 50 million civilians were murdered or died in political prisons in the name of "the good" during the 20th century. This is the incredible danger of having a moral and/or political philosophy that is not objectively defined in connection to reality.

If utilitarian principles are taken seriously, it would lead to some ridiculous results. For example, we can do a simple equation. If we kill Bill Gates or simply appropriate all of his wealth, we could give $1,300 dollars to each person who earns under $30,000 a year. (Bill's 1999 net worth was 90 billion, and 70 million people had tax returns with gross adjusted income under $30,000 - or $1300 per person).  In doing this, we would be creating a tremendous amount of pleasure for a great number of people with a minimum of pain, especially if we kill him quickly and "painlessly.".

Even better, if we kill (painlessly when possible) the top 5% wealthiest people and distribute their wealth to the least wealthy in accordance with their poverty, we would do even better. As a matter of fact, let's just figure out the most appropriate level of wealth above which the person's money is taken from them and distributed for maximum pleasure for the rest of the people.

Although we might say that this could never happen, almost precisely this has happened in numerous communist revolutions around the world. Each was conducted in "full moral righteousness" because the killers and "redistributors" of wealth were creating a "greater good for a greater number." If the good is undefined except for "the public" pleasure, there is no principle to protect human life, liberty, or the ability to pursue happiness for any one individual.

As becomes obvious, because utilitarianism does not have an objectively defined "good" and "bad" connected to reality, in practice it is a glorified form of mob rule. (Unfortunately, it is also the unexamined premise of most of our current social policy and regulations.) This is the insoluble philosophical problem with utilitarianism and the reason that Objectivists decry and censure it.

Again, Objectivism argues that there is an objective standard of morality connected to reality. It is the life of each individual human being, which means their ability to think, choose, and act on their choices according to their own rational conclusions.

index

Altruism

Underlying Utilitarianism lies an often unspoken definition of good, which the leaders who have used utilitarian justification claim as their ultimate standard: Altruism. If anyone disagrees with the utilitarian's "right" to take someone's life, liberty, or property for the good of the many, altruism is the "moral" trump card used against them..

Altruism is the underlying morality of our age. Altruism, in the common understanding, is about being kind to people, tolerant, helpful, and generous. These are all fine traits and Objectivists have nothing against them.

However, at its center, altruism is not a suggestion, but a set of moral principles. When we look at the principles, they go far beyond a disposition of being generous and thoughtful. The theory of altruism (as taken from Kant and Compte) says that an act is not moral if you benefit from it. If you ever do anything for your own benefit, it is selfish and for that reason, immoral.

It is critical to understand the foundation of altruism in order to understand its devastating effects. When thus examined, it is actually easy to understand, but difficult to comprehend why it has been considered "valuable."

In altruism, the morality of an act is based on two basic criteria:

1) Whom you intend to benefit from it; and

2) How much sacrifice you must make in the process of taking that action.

The first criterion for judging the moral value of an act in altruism is the intended beneficiary of the act. If you intend to benefit yourself as the motivation for any action, it has the highest negative value; it is the most immoral. If it is someone you love, it has some positive value, but not much because of the pleasure you get from seeing someone you love receives the benefits. If you do not know the person, then you gain high moral praise, and if you dislike or even hate the person but try to benefit them anyway, this deserves the highest moral praise.

The second criterion for judging the moral value of an act in altruism is how much work and cost it takes you to help the "other." If it takes you only a small amount of work or cost, the act has only a small amount of moral value. If it costs you a medium amount, it has medium value. If it costs you an extraordinary amount, you get the highest praise. If you become a martyr or give your life, you become saintly.

When we combine these two criteria we end up with:

1) Using minimum effort (minimum wealth, time, energy) to maximally benefit yourself and those you love is the most immoral behavior one can engage in; and

2) Using maximum effort (complete sacrifice of Self, wealth, time, energy) to benefit those you hate and despise most is the most moral behavior you can engage in.

This is the standard of good and bad which lies at the heart of Altruism. It is not only (literally) a complete reversal and inversion of the Objectivist code of morality (for Objectivists, #1 is the standard of morality, and #2 is the standard of immorality), it is also a complete perversion of the very concept of morality itself and what the common human being understands as "the good."

The truly perverse part is that in altruism, the having and enjoying of wealth is still a moral criterion of goodness, as long as it is NOT YOU who has it or enjoys it! Protecting people from being harmed or stolen from is a benefit and moral, as long as you are not protecting yourself! Again, it is a complete perversion of morality.

If a person truly followed these principles, and acted altruistically, they would not survive long on earth. It is a morality that leads to destruction because it contradicts human nature and the nature of reality.

The average American knows and acts on the premise that their own health, wealth, and happiness are the "good" that they work to achieve on a daily basis. They might puppet their religious altruist doctrines while in church on Sunday. They might even feel true moral guilt at particular times for not practicing the morality of altruism they preach. But when it comes to their daily lives, they LIVE by (choose their actions on the basis of) a code of conduct, which states that their own lives and happiness are the proper "good" for them to achieve.

However, when asked about it, many if not most Americans accept the altruist code of morality as "right" and judge themselves as immoral to some degree, BECAUSE they do not follow it in their daily life. They feel guilty for acting on a code of self-interest (selfishness) even though they know in their heart that it is right to earn one's own living and live one's own life. This guilt is the leverage used by the preachers of sacrifice or regulatory policy to keep people from fighting for their property or even their right to choose for themselves how to engage in trade.

To the degree that the preachers of altruism can get people to accept the "morality" of altruism, they gain power through the people's guilt. To the degree that they succeed in tapping into people's guilt, they can control them. If they want his possessions, work, energy, anything; in other words, his LIFE, he is "immoral" if he does not give it to them. He is "vulgar" and "selfish" regardless of how reasonable and rational his argument against them is. Further, if you disagree with this judgment, you are "mean hearted," "unenlightened," and "inhuman." This is a pretty fancy and powerful move if you can get someone to accept it. Perhaps Nietzsche said it best: " With morality it is easiest to lead mankind BY THE NOSE!"

The sad truth about this morality is that most people have never looked at it, and therefore, have not questioned its basic contradictions. When they do actually understand what altruism is saying, how monstrous it is, they drop it in disgust unless they have religious guilt that they cannot overcome.

Fortunately, regulators for the most part, do not want to invoke a truly altruist plan, or they would be communists. The essential reason they promote altruism is to leverage their guilt and discredit those who would argue against them by calling them inhuman, selfish bastards.

index

To summarize the ethical positions of regulators and Objectivists:

The essential ethical logic used to justify regulations is Utilitarianism backed by Altruism. The basic ethical principle in regulations is that the group is more important than the individual; that others are more important than oneself; that the individual can and should in full ethical righteousness be sacrificed for the good of the community/collective. Therefore we can legitimately use force to regulate any aspect of the market we think best serves the "public good," regardless of the negative consequences to any particular group. If the groups that are hurt by our regulations deny our right to do this, we can brand them as selfish and morally condemn them.

The essential ethical logic of Objectivists is that the only justification for governmental interference of the free rational choices of any citizen, is if their actions violate another citizen's rights by force or fraud. Regulations unjustly interfere with these choices and violate our fundamental "negative rights" of being protected from harm. Therefore, regulations that violate our negative rights are always immoral.

index Epistemology

Once we recognize the essential moral positions of the regulators and the Objectivists, the question then becomes: "Which of these sets of ideas are most correct? Which more accurately describe the actuality of reality?" These questions in turn beg the question: "How would we know which one is correct? By what standard do we judge the truth of an concept?" Hence, the arguments of morality immediately lead to the primary question of epistemology: How do we know what is true or accurate?

Objectivist epistemology

The Objectivist epistemology argues that the logical consistency of concepts connected to reality is the standard of truth. Objectivists assert that you can know reality; that only rationality connected with experience can serve as the standard of truth. If there are internal contradictions in an argument, or a concept not grounded in reality is used as a premise, the conclusions reached are invalid and cannot be assumed true. When an argument uses true premises (concepts grounded in reality), and logically demonstrates a conclusion without contradiction, that conclusion is valid and the idea it represents is true. It is the internal and external consistency of the arguments that determine their validity and value.

The Objectivist method of argumentation is to examine the position of their interlocutor for any contradictions it might contain either internally (logical, presuppositional) or externally (experience and fact). If it is free of contradiction, it is valid. If it contains contradictions, it is invalid until and unless the interlocutor can clear up the contradictions.

In the context of regulations, Objectivists point to the contradictions in the collectivist morality and the regulations built upon them, as outlined above. The criteria that Objectivists use to judge the appropriateness of the proposed legislation is its consistence with a) the nature of realty; and b), the nature of the individual mind. As mentioned above, because it is individuals that must think and solve the problems that confront them in order to achieve their values, it is the sovereignty of the individual mind that forms the cornerstone of the Objectivist ethics. This ethics is necessitated by the epistemology.

To the degree that this Objectivist method of argumentation and critique (rationality) is considered valid, the position of regulators is systematically demonstrated to be invalid.

If regulators/collectivists used reason consistently in their arguments, the contradictions in their position would become apparent and they would have to abandon a) reason, or b) their position. They choose to abandon reason.

index

Regulator epistemology

The epistemology of regulators/collectivists argues that logic is not the arbiter of truth; that reality cannot be known absolutely through reason and experience and therefore, all "knowledge" is inherently uncertain. If there is any absolute truth at all, we can only know it through faith in mystical revelation, or through the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

If the individual rational consciousness cannot truly know reality except through faith, as is often asserted as truth, several important consequences follow:

1) Individuals cannot decide for themselves what is real or true. This idea is the basis of the idea that people are not smart enough to choose for themselves how they use their own resources. This, in turn, is the justification behind the idea that the all-wise state can make our decisions for us thorough regulatory policy.

2) Attempts to know reality through reason are fundamentally wrong-headed. (At the extreme, they deny validity to the very idea of "truth," though for reasons I am about to discuss, they rarely push this point explicitly.)

3) Attempts to define the truth or accuracy of a position by relating it to reality through argument and reason are pointless.

The regulator/collectivist asserts that the group is the standard of reality, not rationality as understood by the individual mind. Therefore, in place of using reason to seek truth and accuracy, they use an epistemology of feeling, faith, and force (consensus) as the criteria to judge, not an idea's 'truth" value, but its "sentimental" value. The goal of argumentation for regulators is not to build a logical or rational case that makes sense in light of reality, but to affect people emotionally, to affect their sentiment to such a degree that they support your position in spite of the internal and external contradictions. The point is not truth, but power; not accuracy, but influence; not morality, but consensus, not justice, but control.

Argument by sentiment is the dominant method of argument used in government, political organizations, corporations, and even families, gangs, romantic relationships, etc. To the degree that someone can affect your sentiments, they can successfully bypass your "common sense" and "better reason" to promote ridiculous and deadly propositions.

This of course, leads to the type of arguments eventually used to justify regulations. The collectivists/regulators call upon our "feelings" of compassion, faith in religious teachings, and the consensus of the group (force). They use polls, arguments from authority and revelation, and appeals to emotions and tradition. They assert that their arguments do not need to be logical or consistent with experience, as they are backed by the "timeless ethical principles" of Utilitarianism and Altruism which "all enlightened people" "know" are "true." Even if their ideas seem to contradict reality, the power of sentiments trump any contradictions. Unfortunately, this is generally very effective.

The most dangerous idea to this type of argument is a commitment to placing rationality above sentiments in determining the value of ideas. Objectivism or any other philosophy that sets this as a standard is anathema to those who use sentiment as an argument. Hence, if anyone rationally argues against their use of sentiment or rationally points out the contradictions of their position, they are immediately confronted with two challenges:

1) The moral charge of being "heartless," "arrogant," or "cruel." This is an attempt to reassert the superiority of sentiment above rationality by engaging guilt. If an Objectivist still insists that the argument be examined rationally without recourse to sentiment, if the context allows it, they will eventually throw an emotional fit and end the argument by fiat. In politics, they conduct a smear campaign or start a war.

2) The epistemological declaration that knowledge is impossible or at least uncertain. This is an attempt to exempt themselves from rational criticism.

This last move is especially frustrating because, even though it is built on a basic contradiction ("we know" that "we can't know anything"), they will not recognize that the contradiction invalidates their position. They can simply assert that reality is not so black and white, so cut and dry, and deny their responsibility to make sense.

index

Metaphysics

Of course, as everything always does, all the above leads down to the essential question of "what is the nature of human beings and reality itself?" It leads to metaphysics.

The central question of metaphysics is whether or not a) the world we experience through our senses is the true world; or b) if there is a true world which lies outside our senses, with the one that we experience being only apparent, or illusory. This is the fundamental distinction in metaphysics, the answer to which underlies and affects every other idea one holds.

Classically, Aristotle (and the Aristotelians from Aquinas and Bacon to Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand) holds the position that this world we experience is the real world, it is reality. On the other hand, Plato, (and the neo-Platonists from Plotinus and Augustine to Kant and postmodernism) holds that the world that we experience is only apparent and illusory, and that there exists a nominal reality that transcends the world of experience. This transcendental world is the "true world." In religious terms, this "true world" is the world of God(s), or Spirits, or Brahman. Plato held that the world we experience is analogous to seeing shadows reflected on the wall of a cave, but never seeing the light or the "true world" directly.

These two stances, Platonic or Aristotelian, are the fundamental choices in metaphysics, upon and out of which all the other distinctions of philosophy are built.

Another way of describing this distinction is with the concepts "primacy of existence" (Aristotle) and "primacy of consciousness" (Plato). The foundation of a "primacy of existence" metaphysics is that existence exists, that A=A. The world has a nature and is the object of consciousness. Consciousness is aware of existence, but existence is primary.

The foundation of a "primacy of consciousness" metaphysics is the idea that existence is a function of consciousness. That it is some type of "flux" and that "a does not have to equal a" but is: a) what our consciousness makes of it; b) what a volitional God's consciousness makes of it; or c) what some type of combination/propitiation between the two make of it. In this stance, consciousness determines what form existence will take.

The metaphysics one chooses will determine the nature of the epistemology one uses, the ethical system one uses to guide one's actions, the politics one promotes, and even the experiences one will find beautiful. Hence, it is the single most important philosophical issue that exists, and the most important intellectual choice we will ever make, both for ourselves and for the continued existence of human beings.

As Jason Alexander points out, every period of growth, progress, and increase in Western history (Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment/Industrial/American Revolution) was a period in which the Aristotelian metaphysics was dominant. Every period of slippage, retreat, and recidivism (the dark ages, the reformation, and our present age of altruism/statism) was a period where the Platonic metaphysics was dominant.

The power of Metaphysics

In summary, and as a capsulation of "The Ultimate Argument", let us examine the consequences of accepting either of these metaphysics.

index

Aristotelianism/Objectivism:

Metaphysics: If one accepts the Aristotelian/Objectivist metaphysics, then one accepts the world of sensory experience and our mental abstractions of that experience as reality, and one works with the facts of consciousness and experience to choose appropriate behaviors given that reality.

Epistemology: If reality (existence) has a nature, then human beings have a nature, including the ability and necessity of thinking. If existence has a nature and is consistent, then logic and non-contradiction (consistence) are the appropriate epistemology. We can gain KNOWLEDGE about reality by rationally integrating appropriate abstractions consistent with our sensory experience through time and multiple contexts.

Ethics: If existence and human beings have a nature, then ethics would be the rational description of behaviors that are in alignment with human nature and further its existence. The "good" would be the codification of those human behaviors that further the life and happiness of each individual human being. The "evil" would be those human behaviors that hinder, destroy, and/or thwart that life and happiness. Since each individual human being must think and make rational choices appropriate to their nature and existence in order to survive and thrive, the individual human being is the appropriate focus of an Aristotelian/Objectivist ethics. It is the rational, non-contradictory extension of a primacy of existence metaphysics extended through an epistemology of reason. Any disagreements about the moral status of any particular behavior can be discussed according to an objective set of rational principles. Hence, rational discussion according to an objective standard is the appropriate method of resolving conflicts.

Politics: If existence has a nature, human beings have a nature, and ethics is the codification of what furthers or hinders that nature, then politics would simply be the rational extension of that ethics to interpersonal interactions of individuals in groups (society). A politics appropriate to the nature of human beings and existence would provide a context in which individuals were free to think, choose, and act on those choices. It would accomplish this by protecting its members from physical force and fraud (police, military), and by providing a means to dissuade and punish those who use force or fraud (objective law and the court system). It would be an objective system that guaranteed to protect the individual rights of its citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It would allow human beings to trade freely according to their rational judgment and self-interest. In a word, this is the United States Constitution. In a word, it is a way of life called "Capitalism."

index

Platonism

Metaphysics: If one accepts a Platonic metaphysics, then the reality is unknowable through the senses and/or determined in some fashion by how we think about it. If reality (existence) does not have a nature but is a function of consciousness, then its consistence through time is uncertain. We could not learn and discover the properties/laws of that reality through experience, because we have no grounds to suspect that the future will be like the past or that there are any laws to discover. If it does have a consistent nature, but that nature is outside our sensory experience and our ability to know it, it is mystical and ineffable.

Epistemology: In order to deal with this transcendent reality, one must have some type of mystical access to that reality. If one does not have personal access to that mystical reality, one must gain WISDOM through faith in a) those that claim to have such access; b) the scriptures they have written; or c) the consensus of the group. If existence itself is flux or transcendent, then feelings, faith, and consensus are the appropriate epistemological tools. Reason and rationality are inappropriate because the use of reason implies that reality is fixed and final and can be understood by the mind though experience. If such experience contradicts or conflicts with revealed wisdom, it is reason and experience that must be wrong. As one Christian theologian put it: "The secular person judges the truth of the Bible according to how it conforms to their experience and reason. The Christian judges the truth and validity of their experience and reason by how it conforms to the teachings of the Bible." This is the Kantian move that says that since reason is only applicable in the world of sensory experience, the "true" (divine) world and its moral edicts are not subject to rational discussion. As another quote has it: "For those who know, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not know, no explanation is possible."

Ethics: If reality is flux or transcendent, and knowledge comes from feelings, faith, and force (consensus) then morality would be that which allowed the group to shape that flux: 1) for the greatest good for the greatest number; 2) according to an altruist creed of self-sacrifice; or 3) by whatever revealed set of moral rules of the religion of your choice. When faith, feelings, and consensus are the epistemological methods, the "revealed wisdom" of the group who is in power will be the morality of choice, regardless of that morality's internal consistence or its relationship to human nature and the nature of existence (its rationality). The criteria for morality will be the obedience of any individual to the revealed morality of those making the moral judgment. Hence, the moral status of any particular behavior will change as different groups come into power. Because there are no objective, rational means of reaching knowledge, there is no standard to which one can appeal except with one's faith in the revealed truth. If someone's faith is different than yours, all discussion becomes pointless. Because reason is not a legitimate means to persuade others, force and threats become the only means left for resolving conflicts.

Politics: If reality is flux or transcendent, and knowledge comes from feeling, faith, and force, then the emotions, faith, and consensus of the moment which dictate the morality of the day, would give favors to the group of the moment according to the distribution of power of the moment. Laws would be based on tradition, rather than objective principles. As the consensus alters, the laws and regulations themselves will change. The regulations made by government would tend to default to the commonly held unconscious moral tendencies in our current culture. In the current scene, this is altruism and utilitarianism. Because political regulations are implemented at the point of a gun, this means that unexamined, contradictory, and range of the moment moralities are backed by deadly force. This sad truth has led to the killing over 50 million civilians by their own governments for political purposes in the 20th century alone.

Of course, one cannot be consistent with such a philosophy and survive long, so the proponents of regulations and government interference in the economy do not attempt to be philosophically consistent. Rather, they use philosophy like a Trojan horse with which they smuggle their range of the moment regulations into the political debate.

Philosophy still has some legitimacy in the minds of many intellectuals, and they use this credibility as a shield against rational criticism of their motivations and policies. When it serves their cause, they invoke a piece of philosophical wisdom uttered by some "learned professor." When it does not serve them, they claim that knowledge is uncertain, and that the ideas used against them "might work in theory but not in practice."

This explains the popularity of a philosophy founded in a primacy of consciousness metaphysics: It clouds the very concept of truth and knowledge in a fog of faith and wisdom, and it asserts that the common people do not have the capacity to judge for themselves. To the degree they get people to accept this, they can lead them around by the nose.

index

Conclusion:

Notice that the political idea of regulation automatically works back through ethics, to epistemology, and all the way back to metaphysics and the nature of reality. All governmental interference in the market runs into these same arguments. In fact, every argument offered in today's public arena is subject to this analysis. From Maplethorpe, to welfare, to suicide, to channeling the Archangel Michael. Every idea that exists has its roots in a metaphysical stance that is Platonic or Aristotelian, and its validity can be judged thereby.

If you accept that existence exists and has a nature that is non-contradictory (A=A); that therefore reason (non contradiction internally and externally) is the criteria for knowledge, that therefore ethics is the code of behavior that furthers individual human lives (the source and center of reason), then you will consistently choose the same fundamental political principles of "negative" individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) and the economic system which is its realization: Capitalism.

If you assert that existence is transcendent, and therefore knowledge is outside the province of reason, you can end up anywhere at any time in any subject, depending on when you apply the method of rationality in your argument and when you suspend it in favor of feelings, faith, and consensus (force).

In Objectivism, there is really only one argument for every subject, and that is the ultimate argument. This makes sense, as the system is consistent. If the nature of reality is consistent, if A=A, then there is only one answer to every fundamental question.

The question then becomes, how accurate are the premises and data from which we base our arguments as Objectivists? Given that we may have imperfect data, Objectivists are not always 100% correct in their conclusions in any particular argument. However, in fundamentals, they always have the same argument, and it is the only consistent argument that exists.

Mark Michael Lewis