Comments on Searching For Natural Moral Principles- LOVE- second component of Goodness

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to Searching For Natural Moral Principles- LOVE- second component of Goodness

DV

Thanks for the input. I didn't know Rand's reaction to the "lifeboat dilemma." Her response that we don't live in lifeboats was indeed a ignoble evasion, that disappoints me. In a way, our entire planet is a lifeboat in space, and each nation is a lifeboat on the sea of human survival. The lifeboat dilemma, the question of who survives in disaster or war, is forced upon more people than most of us can imagine.

I wish I could challenge Rand with a modification of the lifeboat dilemma, in which one passenger tries to murder another. What would be Rand's reaction to that? Just let them do it, or risk your own life to stop them? The selfish approach would be to let them do it. One less person in the lifeboat increases the rations and the chances of survival for everyone else. But the immorality of this should be obvious to everyone. Rand's reluctance to sacrifice seems to go too far.

I think I know why Ayn Rand was so philosophically opposed to selfless love and sacrifice. Rand escaped from Russia in the 1920's, when Lenin was building his new utopia of Communism, by destroying individual freedom and filling gulags with prisoners. Lenin was preaching extreme sacrifice (of individualism) for the good of the collective, condemning capitalism and individualism as evil, and crushing anyone who pursued self-interests outside the strict limits of Communism. Rand's black vision of "sacrifice" came from Lenin and his propagandists, so when she became a philosopher in America, she constructed extreme arguments against "sacrifice" and for "enlightened self-interest."

The eternal problem is, when evil predators start gaining political control (and the people begin to resemble victims in a lifeboat), immediate and widespread resistance among the people is the only thing that will stop the predation, involving risk and sacrifice for the benefit of "strangers," who are not really strangers at all, but fellow citizens who are in the same plight. If enough people are willing to risk and sacrifice, the predator cannot succeed, and the freedom and sovereignty of the people will be preserved. Sadly, this does not happen very often. Rand was no help here, trying to make selfishness into a virtue and sacrifice into a sin.

If Rand and thousands of others like her had stayed in Russia to fight Communism any way they could, instead of abandoning their country to tyranny, they may have been able to make a difference. I believe THAT was their moral duty, which they tried to rationalize away.

posted by GoldenMean on May 12, 2005 at 8:36 PM | link to this | reply

Rand offered a questionable rationale in defense of risking one's life for a loved one in "The Virtue of Selfishness": that you might imagine life being unbearable without that person, so it is a rationally selfish act to risk your life for him or her.

Rand's romanticism was transparent in such argumentative gestures.  When it came to dealing with such overt expressions of love, she relaxed her logic and let such speculation have its way. 

As I recall, though, she did not endorse self-sacrifice in the "life boat dilemma" in which you either save yourself or save a stranger.  She wrote something like "we don't live in life boats," evading the question. 

Later in the essay, however, she sets a standard that would clearly not oblige a person to sacrifice his life for a stranger -- she calls it an act of general goodwill to help a stranger ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY, because emergencies threaten so many people that even the survivors will suffer in terms of self-interest if they don't help strangers to survive and are left in a wilderness.  She did, however, caveat that one does not have a DUTY to help strangers; but that one may do so out of good will. 

Furthermore, as to the life-boat dilemma, her standard seems to answer that question for us: "sacrifice not self to others, nor others to self."  While she muddled her logic by allowing self-sacrifice for a loved one, or for one's country -- in a just war, she surely would not have gone so far as to endorse self-sacrifice for perfect strangers.  That would not have been consistent, in her view, with rational self-interest.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 10, 2005 at 7:50 PM | link to this | reply

Some of you Bible experts help me out here

Didn't Jesus say something like "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your neighbor."

posted by GoldenMean on May 7, 2005 at 8:49 PM | link to this | reply

A question for you, then

Dylan, it is apparent that you would risk your life, or even sacrifice it, to defend one of your loved ones from aggression. I am fairly certain that I would do this. Is it your position, or Rand's position, or both, that this is a selfish act? I suppose it could be considered that way.

But the crucial question for you, and for us all, is whether we would risk our life or sacrifice it to defend a complete stranger, who is being attacked or killed in our presence. This would seem to be a completely unselfish act of justice, motivated by great love. I think that the more people we have who are willing to do this, the fewer predators we will have in the world.

What would Rand's position be on this, I wonder? I haven't read enough of her philosophy to offer an opinion.

posted by GoldenMean on May 7, 2005 at 7:46 PM | link to this | reply

You caught me in an Ayn Rand selfish mode.  That's true that love is supposed to be for everyone, but I must confess I love my family and friends more than anyone else.  Rand said love is a response to values, the result of passionately sharing someone's values, hence Dagny Taggart's love of John Galt.  This is necessarily a selfish understanding of love, and I suppose I found myself thinking in that mindset without fully realizing it.

As to loving the one whom we are defending against, I think I did not make my point clear -- I was not objecting to this.  I think we rightly love the ones we defend, and rightly do not love the (present form of) the person we are defending against.  I just don't think we can show love to an aggressor, at least not at the moment we are striking him.  If he survives and radically changes, then that's another story; but as we agreed, exigency trumps potential.  If a person wants love, he must never pose a lethal threat, for that is the one threat that will provoke his enemy to justifiably end his life and thus prevent him from ever changing.  If someone does pose a lethal threat, even if he might have changed later on, I will feel no sympathy for him when he dies. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 7, 2005 at 9:05 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks for your crucial comment, Dylan

You wrote: "You raise a very important point here, and one that I had not considered -- that love does not violently defend."

It is amazing that people generally do not see this point, but it is quite obvious to me. Love is committed to non-violence, to "PEACE", and is blind to the the cost to others of that commitment. This is apparent in the pacifist opposition to any war that comes along, currently the war in Iraq. People who are attuned to love are automatic and de-facto PACIFISTS, against all violence, because of the moral/metaphysical superiority of Love. But what they fail to realize is that in the PHYSICAL arena where we all live, physical force can easily overpower love. How can love stop the physical force of the murderer, the thief, the rapist, the neurotic, the sociopath, the psychopath, from his/her selfish designs? The answer is simple. Without force, love CANNOT stop them. But the pacifists in democratic countries do not realize this, and continue to protest against any violence. Never mind that without the violence that their forefathers used against the tyrants of the period, they would not have the freedom to protest at all.

You wrote: "Love can only motivate us to defend our loved ones -- and ourselves, for we will presumably strive harder to defend that which we love."

Not exactly. You are painting Love in a selfish color here, to defend ourselves or our loved ones more than strangers. That is not the essence of Love. The essence of Love is all-accepting. Love respects the stranger, the outsider, just as much as the family, perhaps even more, giving the stranger the benefit of the doubt. This is the fatal error of Love, for the stranger may be a monster capable of the most horrific crimes, but Love does not consider that possibility, embracing the stranger as a moral equal. After the stranger turns out to be a predator, and takes what he/she wants from their supposed moral superior, the supposedly morally superior victim can concoct the most amazing excuses for their failure to stop this morally inferior person from screwing them.

You wrote: "But love itself does not do justice to the wicked. That's a troubling thought, but I suspect that we all intuit as much."

That is the simple nature of Love. By itself, Love is incapable of stopping or punishing the wicked. But we must forcefully stop the wicked people of the world, if the good people of the world are to live in peace. It is a cosmic paradox: those beings who value Love the most are incapable of preserving it. They become extremists of Love, and lose sight of Justice.

You wrote: "So when we justly strike back, we are motivated by love for those whom we defend, but not for the one whom we are defending against."

Come on now, Dylan. If we are JUSTLY striking back, then those who we are striking back at are UNjustified. You can't have it both ways. One is right, and one is wrong. The crucial question is, who struck the first UNJUSTIFIED blow? That person is in the wrong, and deserves no benevolence, and must be stopped. If we have the correct definition of LOVE, then we are doing an act of LOVE when we use physical force to stop those who have abandoned LOVE. Their abusive/predatory/destructive actions must be terminated with physical force. If they survive that termination, they may then be motivated to consider the error of their ways, and begin to respond to the natural attraction of LOVE.

You wrote: "I do not see how we could, in this case, purport to love our enemy. This makes me doubt Jesus' instruction to "love your enemy." I just don't see that working."

I don't see it either. That is the irritating grain of sand that made me produce the pearl of my philosophy. I guess that reduces me to the level of an oyster, but that is where I am. Loving a person who is bent on my complete destruction, or bent on stealing my hard-earned assets, or bent on slowly draining my precious resources, is a form of insanity.

If you are the moral superior, then "loving your enemy" lets the moral inferior win an immoral victory. What is the point of letting your enemies crucify you? That is a crushing defeat, that proves nothing. To me, the moral superior has a moral OBLIGATION to win any conflict with a moral inferior. Otherwise, what is the point of being a moral superior?

I fear that the true philosophy of Jesus is lost to us. All that remains is a distorted caricature, a warped doctrine forged by the first few generations of Christian bishops after Jesus, who banished or excommunicated or killed all who disagreed with them.

posted by GoldenMean on May 6, 2005 at 11:51 PM | link to this | reply

You raise a very important point here, and one I had not considered -- that love does not violently defend. 

Love can only motivate us to defend our loved ones -- and ourselves, for we will presumably strive harder to defend that which we love. 

But love itself does not do justice to the wicked.  That's a troubling thought, but I suspect that we all intuit as much.

So when we justly strike back, we are motivated by love for those whom we defend, but not for the one whom we are defending against. 

I do not see how we could, in this case, purport to love our enemy.  This makes me doubt Jesus' instruction to "love your enemy."  I just don't see that working.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 6, 2005 at 7:05 PM | link to this | reply

Mysteria

You are welcome. I have seen the flower of your soul, and it is exquisitely beautiful, but you have told us how it has been crushed. Thus you understand the need for the next component of Goodness, which is Justice. But your flower of Love is blooming again, I believe, pushing through the scum and debris that tried to crush it.

posted by GoldenMean on May 6, 2005 at 9:06 AM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean

Eloquent and full of wisdom.  Thanks for the very interesting reading. 

posted by mysteria on May 6, 2005 at 8:50 AM | link to this | reply