Moral Values and Selfishness | Exploring Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand | Episode 5

Gloria Alvarez, Onkar Ghate and Harry Binswanger continue their discussion of morality, exploring questions such as: What are values and why do we need them? What is selfishness and how is it properly understood? What are principles and how are they important to living a moral life?

If you have ever wondered what philosophy is and how ideas shape human life, this series is for you. Join Gloria Álvarez as she interviews Ayn Rand Institute philosophers Harry Binswanger and Onkar Ghate on Ayn Rand’s revolutionary philosophy: Objectivism. This in-depth but accessible discussion series covers a broad range of topics, starting from the fundamentals of philosophy to ethics, politics and art.

Don't want to wait for the next episode? The full series is available on the Ayn Rand University app:

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

******

******

[fabianmiranda]

ARI should keep Gloria as host for other series as well. I think shed be a great addition to the lineup and help bring in a lot of latin viewers.

[theindividual]

Great discussion. Thank you for the video.

[skyblue]

Latin people need this urgently instead of religion!!!

[sathyath]

11:27 To explain the difference of 'selfishness' meant by Ayn Rand against common understanding, is that Ayn Rand's 'selfishness' means a win-win condition. While other people have this notion (that derived from religion and culture and limitation of language), that 'selfishness' only have single meaning that is win-lose condition (if I win, others lose. If others win, I lose). And that's why it is so hard for common people to understand and view this word 'selfishness' from another perspective.

If a situation resulting in win-lose condition, to Ayn Rand, it is not the correct 'selfishness', because it dilutes and violate other party's right. Regardless which end you're in. Whether the win side or the lose side. They're all the same. Just different sides. While to other people, that's the correct definition of being 'selfish'.

The right way for being 'selfish', to Ayn Rand, would be pursuing the value you want from others, by exchanging it with the value you can provide to them. That's what meant by 'earned'. That's why trading (exchanging values with others), and its byproduct: profits, is not a zero sum game. But rather, mutually beneficial to both parties. A win-win condition.

And this is why Ayn Rand's view on economy is promoting leissez-faire capitalism, where every individual has the right to pursue whatever they want, by free trading. Not by any external force of any kind.

[sandeepsundaran]

I watch this series for Gloria. You see her beauty and get to hear intelligent talks.

[Torgomasta]

The predead corpses as a response to the potential versus actual issue part was hilarious. Thanks for the content as always!

[TheNormallyOpen]

Very interesting, and I think that 'overthinking' was a very good example - we are animals with instincts, and I think that we can overdo inhibiting ourselves. This is a fascinating philosophy, I think that developing a solid ego structure is fundamental to fulfilment.
I am looking forward to learning further.
Thank you, all the best

[bretnetherton]

Reality is not two there can be no primacy. "Awareness is known by awareness alone, " is the sole irreducible axiom of reality...

[sathyath]

46:36 About the difference between moral vs political question, I think you can put it this way:

What Dagny did was a moral question. And to some extent, it is arguably justifiable. Because John was someone she knew and care, in other words 'it is personal', and he was being tortured to death for no reason (he didn't do anything that violates other people's right). So when Dagny knew that someone was about to do harm to someone she knew personally being innocent, she prevented it from happening. And so it is moral to do so. On the other hand, the guard who held Galt, was not acting in his own consciousness, just following orders, and just holding and tortured someone to death without knowing what they did was wrong or not. And it is immoral.

Killing a dictator who caused millions of people to suffer and die though, is a political question. Because the dictator didn't harm you personally, you don't know the victims personally, and you're not suffering the pain, emotion, and hate to the level where you could justify the action of killing, even to yourself subjectively.
So if the question is whether you should kill or not kill a dictator, it is a political (or they call it 'it's just business') question. The answer might also be yes, for all sorts of reason, but still, it is a political one. Simply because you don't know the situation 'personally'. And therefore, the decision to kill the dictator must be derived externally. Not from within your own self consciousness.

And this proves another principle, that human, are inherently selfish. Not that they hate other people for no reason and want others to suffer, but rather, they simply don't and can't care for every other people they don't know. And they simply do what they do to pursue their own self interest.
Even the most altruistic people who can sacrifice themselves for their family, friends, cities, up to a country, simply can't shed a tear for thousands of deaths in another country.

So if you kill someone you know doing harm to you or others that you know and care, then whether it is justifiable or not, it is a moral question.
But if you kill someone you don't know, who's doing harm to others that you don't know, and don't/can't really care enough, then whether it is justifiable or not, it is not a moral question.

And this is why morality is very often and easily confused with external principles that often conflicting to each other, especially when interpreted at surface level, whether it is from religion, politics, businesses, or any tribal and collectivistic force.

[kylemcclellan]

As a disabled person, I think Harry makes a dangerous point when he talks about "the potential for life" not being a rational argument against abortion. Despite being carried to full term, the only reason I'm alive today is because of the advancement of medicine. If full autonomy is the metric by which we decide whether or not it's moral to take someone out of existence, then logically speaking, it should be legal to "abort" anyone without the skills to survive on their own. On the contrary, because objectivists believe you are responsible for your actions, I think the most logical argument would be that you should only be having consensual sex if you accept all the possible outcomes and you should be responsible for the consequences of that choice.

[radiozelaza]

Even Locke was inspired by already a hundred years old treatise, authored by a Polish senator Wawrzyniec Goslinski in Latin, and translated into English around middle 17th century "Treatise About Good Ruler", or something similar.
Basically an antidote to Machiavelli

[azatkhabibulin]

1:00 “Why do we need values?” (To survive, including “psychological well-being”)
3:10 Examples (abortion and homosexuality)
5:30 The real issue in abortion: “potential is not actual”
7:50 Thinking of values from duty perspective
9:05 Ultimate value
11:30 Limits of selfishness (without harming others)
13:00 What kind of the limit is implied?
13:30 At which point does selfishness start harming others? (80% of selfishness vs 100%) (selfish person has no desire to harm others)
14:40 Refuting Marx’s class struggle conception (no conflict in the pursuit of rational self-interest, conflicts occur for the unearned, which is unselfish) (my own point: physical power over nature is the source of all values, not over men)
15:40 Why does this question always come up? (Sacrifice as wrong, both of oneself to others or others to oneself) (production as incompatible with sacrifice)
17:40 Sacrifice in relationships
18:30 Ayn Rand’s distinctiveness (“moral context, ” “morality tells me I’m not supposed to be practical”)
20:10 Why choose selfishness in a world where sacrifice is the norm? (“Because you don’t care what they think.”) (Example from The Fountainhead)
23:20 What if others harm you? (No shortcut) (full agreement on philosophic essentials is required) (example: agreement on individual rights in the revolutionary period) (only practical action is not enough)
27:00 Rational self-interest vs. hedonism, investment is not sacrifice
29:45 Two central values: reason, purpose
31:50 Harry’s personal example (giving up opportunity to think)
33:20 You need not be a genius (active use of reason is not about intelligence)
34:50 Long-run goals requires being very present of the moment, the virtue of honesty concretized, overthinking is pseudo thinking
36:40 Determinism in morality (ten commandments vs. principles) (engineers don’t build the same constructions)
40:15 Castaway and Martian as rejecting social metaphysics
42:45 Atlas Shrugged as showing what happens to the world when it shifts the burden of morality onto other people
44:25 The Fountainhead is about personal relation to reality
44:55 Atlas Shrugged spoiler, a question on how morality applies to murder
45:40 Moral issue in the spoiler
46:35 “To kill a killer is justified”
47:45 Moral issue in punishment
48:40 Outline of “The Objectivist Ethics” essay (“the proof of the ethics, what the ethics is, what the virtues are, what the social application of it is”)

[TROPIC]

The morality of a gastrointestinal tract, wow.

[periteu]

So, values are health, wealth, self-esteem, freedom and work
If values is that which one acts to gain and/or keep (Ayn Rand) and serves as a means to an ultimate end (Hartford). The ultimate end would be Life. But not any Life, Life as human.

[gogliarobert]

It's a moral intrusion.upon a woman's body, and mind and etc

[radiozelaza]

Binswanger has an interesting mode of argumentation. I wish he had a podcast instead of Yaron Brook;)

[reneolazatin]

with the argument about a fetus not having a right to live. so what about the old people that has dementia. they cannot survive by themselves. does that mean they dont have the right also. human life is a stage. I think they were not able to really answer this argument. Yes doing what you want is being selfish because this is what you want. But since a life is dependent on you does not mean you have the right to kill them. Killing is still killing in what ever form it is.

[drstrangelove]

At some point, in the womb, the fetus IS a human being. It isn't the birth that make it a person. If that were the case then a full term fetus would not be a human being one minute before birth and would be a human one minute after birth. That does not make sense. It isn't the birth that decides if it is a human being. You're wrong on this one.

[andrewphoenix]

The plant analogy highlights the main problem of Ayn Rand objectivism. Yes the plant reaches for the sun and extends its roots down to capture water, but that's not all.

The roots also connect with other plants through a fungal mycelium network, it shares spare resources in the form of carbon, nitrogen and micro nutrients. It's a free agent and part of a collective whole that supports other plants it is connected to.

[mra]

Thanks for the subs, but the quality is worse every time.
Binswanger, I love you.