SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 3) - Objectivi...

Tuesday
September 6, 2005

All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 3) - Objectivism's Solution by Joseph Rowlands

How prevalent is the all or nothing approach? Keep your eyes open and you'll see plenty of examples. But the important point to take away is that degrees really matter. They may require more thinking. They may be more difficult to explain or to utilize. But they're a basic part of comprehension and you can't avoid them without sinking into blind ignorance. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (42 messages)

Tuesday, September 6 - 6:44am

Good finale, Joe!

Whoa. If there is anyone who needed to read this last installment, it is me. Integrating it will be painful (causing some self-reevaluation), and may take some time. I will respond after I feel that I can respond with the same intellectually-exacting sincerity of this piece -- so as not to do it (or really, my values) injustice.

Ed

Tuesday, September 6 - 8:39am

Nice work Joe, and useful.

One question:

to weigh the costs and benefits. A real purpose is a powerful defense against the all or nothing mentality.

It could be argued that this cost, benefit arrangement is a pragmatic approach. What is your advice on avoiding this trap?

Tuesday, September 6 - 5:38pm

I enjoyed reading this again, Joe.

Robert's question is a very good one and something that's always concerned me somewhat. That you can, if not rigorous enough, attempt to argue context and value judgement from a pragmatic and relativistic viewpoint. You can also misuse the term "all or nothing" in an attempt to justify a position that is untenable.

As an example, we've recently had a hot discussion regarding price gouging & the ethics of emergencies, etc. My difficulty in that discussion was that some were stretching the conception of capitalism to the point where they *broke* the concept. In programming terms you could say they took it out of scope. Now, capitalism is based upon certain essentials but when the context you're operating from demands that some of those essentials be negated or denied, you're no longer talking about capitalism. In other words: here's what capitalism is, but in this context we'll modify the essentials of the capitalist concept to make if more convenient to arrive at a correct course of action. Now, that's pragmatism or a variant thereof. Several who tried to point this out were accused of having and all or nothing approach.

My point is, along with Robert perhaps, that if one doesn't take care, the all or nothing epithet could be used as an argument (quite unintentionally) from pragmatism.
Ross

NB: just to be clear, I have *no* desire to shift the aforementioned price gouging debate over here :-)

Tuesday, September 6 - 6:38pm

Joe,

Glad to see this in its entirety finally. Kat took our copy of the Free Radical with her to Chicago, so now I can print this out and put it in my collections of gem articles.

Congratulations on a small masterpiece.

Michael

Wednesday, September 7 - 12:58am

Ed, glad to provide you with a challenge. Thanks for the comments throughout.

Robert, thanks for the kind words. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. You're not the first person to suggest pragmatism might result from avoiding these all or nothing fallacies, but I don't think I really understand your argument, or what you think pragmatism is exactly. Maybe you could explain.

Ross, I'm also unclear about your comments.

My understanding is that pragmatism is a kind of rejection of principles. As I wrote in my article The Idealism-Pragmatism Dichotomy, you can view it as a rejection of principles because principles are often seen as impractical and self-sacrificial. The All or Nothing view of principles, that they're mindless functions you perform regardless of context or degrees, is probably enough to drive people towards pragmatism. But that would be a false dichotomy too. It can't be all or nothing on one side, and a rejection of principles on the other. That would be mindless ritual on one side, and mindless action on the other.

Instead of rejecting principles, the point is to understand their nature better. They're not all or nothing rules handed down to us from god or society. They're a description of a factual relationship. Moral principles in the form of virtues, for instance, describe a causal connection between our means and our ends. Degrees matter because the relationships don't just magically manifest when the conditions are met.

The question of how to avoid pragmatism is a little confusing to me because pragmatism is a rejection of the principles. Instead, I've only argued for a better understanding of them, recognizing not just that they're true, but why they're true (and that the applicability varies with the degrees). But maybe I'm not understanding the question.

MSK, glad you liked it, and hope you get your copy back someday.

Wednesday, September 7 - 7:09am

Joe,

You appear to defining pragmatists as amoral, and I suppose that some are. But I am asking about the demi-moral. I am talking about those who use such bromides as "half a loaf is better than none", "When life gives you lemons," etc. They are not without principle or an understanding of principle, but they also believe they must compromise. Try for the whole loaf, but settle for what you can get.

They understand the virtue of capitalism, but believe it is unattainable, so they are okay with a mixed economy; thinking that is as good as it gets. They understand the evil compulsory taxation represents but will settle for a flat tax, not as an intermediate step to eliminating taxation, but as an acceptable comprise. They think the government can play a positive role in our lives.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/07, 8:29am)

Wednesday, September 7 - 7:30am

J: Instead of rejecting principles, the point is to understand their nature better.

C: An irrational person will reject principles, not a prudent one. When we have a complex to solve, we must per force

disintegrate it in many small pieces try to collect as much data as possible discard the superfluous and deal with the concrete,

this does not mean being simplistic, but just try to do the right thing, a least that is what a good objectivist would do.

J: They are not all or nothing rules handed down to us from god or society.

C: We all know who makes the rules, why have we read atlas.

J: They're a description of a factual relationship. Moral principles in the form of virtues, for instance, describe a causal connection between our means and our ends. Degrees matter because the relationships do not just magically manifest when the conditions are met.

C: Joe when the condition are met are met, everyone would know when his means are met, why I would not know?

The only time that I would not know, is, If I have or am responsible for someone to meat them.

Joe I don�t want to disagree with you I am just trying to understand.

Wednesday, September 7 - 4:48pm

Joe

Re my question above, Robert nailed it in post #5.

Thanks, Robert.

Ross

Wednesday, September 7 - 6:53pm

Ross,

We are both clearly after the same answer.

Wednesday, September 7 - 8:20pm

Robert and Ross,

Maybe I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. I still don't quite grasp the question.

I didn't say pragmatists are amoral. They're just anti-principles. As I wrote in the article I linked to, they accept a theory/practice dichotomy. Of course, it's not all or nothing even there. Often "pragmatic" people will accept principles and may even think of them as ideals, but they don't let them get in the way of decision making. Pragmatists don't really believe the theory completely. They would say that reality is more complicated than that, or you can't really achieve perfection, or whatever else.

Robert's example "Try for the whole loaf, but settle for what you can get" is an example. They may sort of believe in a theory, such as capitalism, but they don't take it too seriously. They don't see anything really wrong with compromising on it. Part of that is probably the belief that it's too difficult to change things. But part of it is a belief that theory shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's a lack of confidence in the ideas themselves. This last part is pragmatism.

So still, I don't understand the question. Idealism, as opposed to pragmatism, is an "all or nothing" fallacy. It upholds blind following of rules, or you're not moral. But rejecting Idealism doesn't necessarily lead to Pragmatism. It all boils down to how your reject it. If you reject principles entirely, since they can't be used as rules, you're gonna be screwed. But if, like I wrote, you recognize that principles work in degrees, there's no problem.

Ciro, I have no idea what you're saying.

Thursday, September 8 - 8:57am

Joe,

We are mutually confused.

They may sort of believe in a theory, such as capitalism, but they don't take it too seriously. They don't see anything really wrong with compromising on it. Part of that is probably the belief that it's too difficult to change things. But part of it is a belief that theory shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's a lack of confidence in the ideas themselves.

If you compromise you are accused of not taking seriously or not understanding principle and if you do not compromise you are demanding all or nothing. I am sensing a catch 22.

Thursday, September 8 - 5:21pm

Joe, I had problems understanding your article "All or Nothing"
because it seemed to be in contradiction with what Ayn Rand once
affirmed when interviewed by the Playboy magazine.
Here is part of her interview:
PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, "There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Isn't this a rather black-and-white set of values?
RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression "black and white"? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.
Can you please comment a bid on this.

Joe: Ciro, I have no idea what you're saying.

Dear Joe, I am here just to learn, I guess it's worth the price I have to pay for it.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/08, 8:41pm)

Thursday, September 8 - 9:32pm

Ciro D'Agostino,

- Ayn Rand was talking about the goodness/evilness of acting on available choices.
- Joe was talking about the goodness/evilness of existing situations/contexts.

Good means contributing towards a person's life and values. Evil means ruining a person's life and values.

- Ayn says only the best choice is the good one. The rest are worse.
- Joe says that you can compare various situations/contexts by the location on the good/evil scale, and make a valid claim that one situation/context is better then the other.

Thursday, September 8 - 10:14pm

Robert, you can be accused of all kind of things, it doesn't make it true. And when people accept a false dichotomy, they're usually going to accuse you of one or the other. Recently I mentioned how someone called SOLO a bunch of hedonists because we didn't believe his conservative views of sex. Similarly if someone believes that it's idealism or pragmatism, you either obey the rules blindly or you're a hopeless pragmatist.

Let's look at some examples. One example is during elections. Do you vote for the best candidate, or do refuse to vote, on principle, because none of the candidates are perfect? Idealists claim you should ignore the possible consequences of your actions, and "do the right thing", or you're a pragmatist. I disagree, and see that as a nice example of idealism in practice. For the idealist, a tax cut that isn't 100% would be immoral and should be opposed. For the idealist, any step towards freedom is considered a travesty since it doesn't achieve it in one fell swoop. And there are plenty of examples outside of politics. But the point is that the idealist doesn't care about results, only about following their rules (which they call principles).

That isn't to say that pragmatism doesn't exist. But the simple act of choosing the best course of action is not pragmatism. I see pragmatism as a kind of evasion. It focuses on the immediate gain (usually monetary), and ignores most potential consequences. It ignores them by pretending that those are just theoretical, and you can't really be sure. Pragmatism is an excuse to ignore what you don't want to see. If someone bribes a politician to go against their campaign promises, they'll just argue that "that's the reality", and it's foolish to limit your actions based on ideals or theories.

Ciro, to add to Dean's reply, I don't see anything incompatible with my article and what Rand said. For instance, I didn't dismiss dichotomies in general...I said they are useful. I only argued against lumping everything together as equals even though they're not. To see a conflict between the quote of Rand's and my own article, you'd have to believe that she saw all actions that are pro-life (moral) as being equally good, and all actions that are anti-life as equally evil. Black and white specifies a fundamental fact...are they beneficial or harmful to your life. They do not absolve you of the need to evaluate within a category.

Friday, September 9 - 7:28am

- Joe says that you can compare various situations/contexts by the location on the good/evil scale, and make a valid claim that one situation/context is better then the other.

Dean, Joe's implication is that you take the best out of every situation, kind like

Sciabarra�s petal of rose in the garbage. Or as Robert says; If you cannot get the full loaf of bread compromise for one half.

I do not live my life like that, I will not compromise for 1/2 loaf of bread if I deserve the full loaf. Joe claims that one situation/context is better than the other. I claim that if the situation is not as I wish, I abstain myself from that situation. For example , I will not vote for a candidate if I will not have 100% trust in him. When I make a decision I make a decision based on the best of my knowledge, and believing in it 100%. If down the road my decision proves to be wrong , I try to learn from it as much as possible, and to be more prepared in the future on a similar situation. Some say it is better to take home a cracked vase than no vase at all. I say no, I will not take home a cracked vase, I rather have no vase at all, than a cracked imperfect one. I will live my life miserably if I would do that.

To accept Joe's implication requires a virtue, which I do not have. The black and white, the, all or nothing, the ether-or, workes just fine for me, and It is not, mental laziness, as Michael says. I say it�s all based on a person�s character.

If the �All or Nothing� is *not* based on rashness or on a personality disorder, I think

It is something to be proud.

I will only compromise for something which I consider to be of value to me , but never for something to be an alternative to that which I value.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/09, 10:38am)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/09, 10:46am)

Friday, September 9 - 4:52pm

Ciro, "All or nothing", Idealism in this context, is irrationality upheld as virtue. Like altruism, the more suffering it causes, the more virtuous the act appears. But it's evasion.

For instance, you make the claim that if you're not 100% happy with something, you abstain from it. But the politician argument evades the central fact. You're stuck with one of the politicians. Choosing not to vote for one is not some kind of noble ideal...it's putting your choice into the hands of others, while evading the fact that you're doing it.

Same with taxes. The All or Nothing mentality would say don't vote for a tax cut because it's not 100%. But the choice isn't between 0% and the new rate. It's between the old rate and the new rate.

The Idealist evades what the outcome will be, and think that by not involving himself he stays moral. He doesn't care if his life is made worse. The so-called "principles" are intrinsically valuable, and his life will be gladly sacrificed for them.

This view of "All or Nothing" is idealism, and it's an irrational belief that you live to serve your principles, instead of your principles serving you. The idealist is ready and willing to sacrifice himself for his principles. It's a self-sacrificial ethics. Your moral virtue is measured by your suffering. That is not Objectivism.

Objectivism holds life as the standard of morality, not obedience to rules (idealists call them principles...they're not). Objectivism holds that morality deals with making choices. Idealists hold that morality involves rejecting reality if it doesn't live up to their ideals. Objectivism uses morality to determine the best course of action. Idealists use morality to damn the choices available, and excuse their inactions as the only "pure" thing to do.

Friday, September 9 - 7:23pm

Joe,

I can see where you are trying to go with this, Joe, but, I'm not sure you've nailed it.

This view of "All or Nothing" is idealism, and it's an irrational belief that you live to serve your principles, instead of your principles serving you. The idealist is ready and willing to sacrifice himself for his principles. It's a self-sacrificial ethics. Your moral virtue is measured by your suffering. That is not Objectivism.

This sounds like Howard Roark to me.

Friday, September 9 - 10:15pm

Dear Joe, the capacity to grasp reality in the form of abstract principles is the essence

of reason possible to men. However, thinking abstractly, it is very difficult; this is a process that men must undertake by themselves in the privacy of their mind.We can easily make mistakes and end up believing false ideas.

How can we validate the objectivity of our thinking? Ayn Rand wrote,� Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" Everything that we can observe through our senses cannot be contradicted of being false.

Logic gives men the standards to make the right judgment of every argument.

I really do not understand why you say that I am an idealist.

Do you call me an idealist because I abstain myself from voting the wrong candidate? What if everybody would abstain from voting the wrong candidate? what then.?

Joe: For instance, you make the claim that if you're not 100% happy with something, you abstain from it.

Well, if I have only one shot in life and have no more chances, I can only enjoy what I get. But if I can have the best, why should I be happy for something less than 100%.

Why Galt did not compromise with Thompson, was he irrational, or an idealist? Please do not tell me that, that was a fictional fact.

Ps.

Joe as I have said in my previous post feels free to answer my questions as you wish. It is worth the price

Friday, September 9 - 10:34pm

"What if everybody would abstain from voting the wrong candidate? what then.?"

"What if everybody recycled?"

"What if everybody planted trees and flowers instead of cutting and picking them?"

"What if everybody stopped hurting each other?"

Everybody doesn't do that. You know with high certainty what people will do. Act accordingly. Change what you can for the better.

Friday, September 9 - 10:37pm

"I can see where you are trying to go with this, Joe, but, I'm not sure you've nailed it."
Oh yea? Where do you see Joe going? What would be nailing it then?

"This sounds like Howard Roark to me."
Why?

Dean Grumpy Gores