SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 1) - A Survey ...

Wednesday
August 31, 2005

All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 1) - A Survey of Errors by Joseph Rowlands

I’m going to talk about a widespread pattern of philosophical errors, which I refer to as the “all or nothing” mentality. The basic problem is an inability to see things in terms of degrees. Instead, everything is viewed as all or nothing. It’s either 100 percent, or 0 percent, with nothing in between. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (18 messages)

Post 0

Wednesday, August 31 - 2:25am

Link

Edit

Good presentation, Joe.

To be sure, rules are for half-wits. Principles are the key. Principled ethics would require a focus on moral agents (and not just moral rules). But even so, I'd argue -- with my characteristically-rationalistic bent -- that principles are generalizable throughout the human race (because of a common human nature that exists in reality). They are -- in this sense -- transcultural (valid in ALL cultures, whether consciously acknowledged, or not).

This, by the way (and no other reason does), serves the purpose of the rational justification of a war. It is precisely because we know what is good for "man" -- that we know when war is just. And we know what is good for "man" -- by knowing what is good for us (ie. men).

Ed

Post 1

Wednesday, August 31 - 5:05am

Link

Edit

Hi Joe:

Thanks for your fine and insightful essay.

I really enjoyed it.

Ed

Post 2

Wednesday, August 31 - 7:19am

Link

Edit

Joe,

I am really glad to see this article here (even if it is only Part 1 so far). It is my favorite of all the ones I have read by you.

So many people want to use reason only once about an issue, come to a rational conclusion only once, then not have to think anymore, just act and react.

That's not what human life is about, nor Objectivism, which you brilliantly show.

Michael

Post 3

Wednesday, August 31 - 8:05am

Link

Edit

Great article, as usual, Joe.

There are quite a few folk who could really benefit from taking this article to heart.

Post 4

Wednesday, August 31 - 11:17am

Link

Edit

Classic Rowlands! This one should be reprinted once a year.

Post 5

Wednesday, August 31 - 11:17am

Link

Edit

Joe:In actuality, deduction isn't quite as nice as all that. It ultimately rests on your initial premises, which you have to learn by induction

Joe, It means, that a true induction will not generate what a thing should be unless we seek the end to which it prescribes the means?

Post 6

Wednesday, August 31 - 11:48am

Link

Edit

Joe:But nature is upheld as a value even if we aren't given the opportunity to enjoy it

The above frase made me think of Dagny standing by the window after
her first ball party.

"Mother,do they think it's exactly in reverse?" she asked.
"What?" asked Mrs. Taggart, bewildered.
"The think you were talking about. The lights and the flowers. Do they expect those things to make them romantic, not the other way around?"

Post 7

Wednesday, August 31 - 1:22pm

Link

Edit

Joe,
In his book Literature Lost, John Ellis introduces the term "PC Logic" (as in Politically Correct), which he describes as follows:
"It begins with a pair of categories, breaks down the distinction, assigns everything to the same category, and finally claims that, as a result, everything is the same. The fallacy at the root of this argument is this: putting things into the same category does not make them
identical. Shades matter." (p. 169)
I think this is similar to one of the ideas that you have captured and elaborated on in your talk and your example of the United States as a police state fits the pattern very well.
Good job.

Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 8/31, 1:44pm)

Post 8

Wednesday, August 31 - 1:38pm

Link

Edit

Joe-

Loved it. Now I feel a little bad for goading you a couple of weeks ago about writing something new for us.

The things that you said regarding intrinsic values vis-a-vis nature are getting me thinking on a few things. That's because I am a Unitarian Universalist, and if there is one thing that you see fairly common in UU's is a deep reverence for nature. A lot of that is along the transcendentalist line of thought. (Braces for giant attack ship). What I have so far is fairly unformed, but I think it actually bridges between that kind of think, and the more traditional thoughts gotten from The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It involves being respectful and reverent in the use of materials, I suppose. My wife sent me this today, I thought of it when I was reading the section on induction and rationalism:

The image of the morning sun in a dewdrop is not less than the sun. The reflection of life in your soul is not less than life. The dewdrop mirrors the light because it is one with light, and you reflect life because you and life are one.
Kahlil Gibran
The Garden of the Prophet

Magnitude exists only in the finite. The concepts: less than, more than, better than, or worse than, are meaningless in The Infinite.
Carson's Commentary

Post 9

Wednesday, August 31 - 3:25pm

Link

Edit

Rich --

Your posts are always very confusing to me because they always seem to convey a set of vauge wishy washy feelings and many times they seem to blatently misinterpret the article or post they are meant to respond to. How on earth does this post relate AT ALL to anything Joe Rowlands said in this article?

- Jason

Post 10

Wednesday, August 31 - 6:49pm

Link

Edit

Excellent article. Excellent.

My only criticsm: The subtitle, "A Survey of Errors: 'Rule-based Ethics'", should be re-arranged or subtitled differently-- so that it is underneath "A Survey of Errors: 'Intrinsic Values'". I was thinking, "These rule-based ethics are intrinsic values! Why is this in a different section then intrinsic values!?!" I was relieved at the end when you stated "In fact, the rule-based morality is just another kind of intrinsic value."

I bet this wasn't a problem when you gave the speech (since there weren't any sub-titles :). It must have been great in person. Now that I have ca$h & rumors of SOLO 5 being in Florida, I wont miss it.

Post 11

Thursday, September 1 - 1:48am

Link

Edit

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Ed Thompson, I agree that principles are generalizable. But application of a principle needs to be specific and contextual. I might have said more on this in the rest of the speech (coming soon).

Ed Younkins, thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Michael, I'm glad you like this one. And you're exactly right that people try to use reason once, and then blindly follow it later. Of course, I go into more detail in the next section about why people are attracted to the all or nothing approach. Since you saw it in the FreeRad, you probably remember.

Hi Scott. One benefit to writing it and making it available is that we can just point to it later when people need it. Since it's a problem that comes up so frequently, we really thought it needed to be made public on SoloHQ.

Jason P, thanks! That might be a good idea.

Ciro....huh? Anyone else understand what he said?

Glenn, great quote! It is exactly one of the things I mentioned. Good find.

Rich, I'm glad you liked it. But like Jason, I'm confused at what you're getting at. But I guess since you said it was fairly unformed, it's to be expected.

Jason Q, no comments on the article?

Dean, thanks. And when writing it with the subtitles, I gave some thought to the fact that they were the same. But since the details are different, even if the principle is the same, I thought it would be better to discuss them both and split them up. If I just immediately said rule-based morality was the same as intrinsic values, it would have distracted from the all or nothing part of it. By describing it in the right context first, and then as an after thought tying it to what we've already seen, it kept the theme clearer (in my mind, anyway). The "sameness" of the two would be seen in terms of the all or nothing fallacy.

Post 12

Thursday, September 1 - 2:17am

Link

Edit

Mr Rowlands --

The article is excellent. You presented several errors that people make in applying "either or" logic to contexts that involve degrees. Objectivists sometimes get into the habit of misapplying the "law of the excluded middle" to situations where it is not appropriate and as you described create false dicotomies. It is easy to understand how newbie followers of Rand can fall into this trap because of misapplications of "A is A" or a misunderstanding of her "The Cult of Moral Greyness" essay. The discussions regarding rationalism, rules and intrinsic values were also well argued and tied together. These are all errors that many of us (including myself) make from time to time in our attempts to apply abstract ideas to real life contexts.

- Jason

Post 13

Thursday, September 1 - 8:01am

Link

Edit

Jason thinks I'm surfing the dark edges of the obtuse:

Your posts are always very confusing to me because they always seem to convey a set of vauge wishy washy feelings and many times they seem to blatently misinterpret the article or post they are meant to respond to. How on earth does this post relate AT ALL to anything Joe Rowlands said in this article?

It's not my fault if you got tired trying to answer that question... :)

Post 14

Thursday, September 1 - 8:27am

Link

Edit

Jason,

Time for me to take some time off, I guess, because generally I actually understand Rich's posts (likewise, I generally understand Michael Marotta's posts).

Dayaamm!

//;-)

Michael

Post 15

Thursday, September 1 - 9:10am

Link

Edit

Ciro....huh? Anyone else understand what he said?

Joe, what I wanted to say is this; There is not one set of values which is appropriate for everyone. Nor is it that a given person in a given circumstances will find himself with the same right choice or the same course of action. Morality will always sanction what we chose to advance our life.
Nothing is good in itself, nor is all the values created by whim in person's mind.
The requirements of our survival are set by reality. What is valuable it's based on the capacity of the valuable to contribute to our life.

Post 16

Thursday, September 1 - 11:17am

Link

Edit

OK, I was reaching. I had to do somethng with that material. I could try to break it down but I think I'd get myself sick.

Post 17

Saturday, September 3 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

Jason, feel free to call me Joe.

Thanks for the comments. I wish you were right that it was only newbies to Objectivism who are prone to falling for this all or nothing trap. I think it's more widespread than that, and the next part of my speech goes into some reasons for it. I think a lot of it comes down to people trying to prove definitively that they're right, and they tend to simplify things too much in order to make the argument stronger. I have the intention of writing further on this topic, although the rest of my speech gives an excellent start in my opinion.