Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 1: The First Lob

Dear Mr. X,

Thank you for your e-mail, it was a pleasure to receive it. I assume you found my website and that is why you are writing me. I'm very pleased that you have taken the time to write to me, and present to me your thoughtful questions and remarks. I will attempt to respond to some of the issues you raise, and to refer you to sources which will offer a more in depth explanation of the Objectivist position on the issues that you mention.

"I have of recent become interested in the philosophy of 'Objectivism', and am curious about certain tenets of its beliefs."

I am pleased to hear this. Objectivism is a fascinating philosophy, and if you continue to explore the system of its thought from its sources (primarily the writings of Ayn Rand), you will likely find - as have I - that as a whole Objectivism is a completely integrated, non-contradictory view of reality, life and values. I have studied numerous philosophies, both religious and non-religious, and I am convinced that no system of thought comes close to remarkable accomplishment of Rand's system. I imagine that may sound like quite a hefty claim, so I do not expect you to take my word for it. I encourage you to continue checking it out for yourself.

"For instance, how can a philosophy of 'morality based on individual happiness' ever hope to sustain a civilization above chaos? If each individual has different moral requirements, how then does a society create laws? Laws must bind everyone, therefore must be based on some individual's concept of morality. How then does a civilization based on individualistic concepts of morality enforce any law at all?"

These are very good questions, and indeed they should be taken very seriously by anyone who believes that a philosophical approach to the problems raised by such questions can enable man to achieve their solutions. Several points to which I would initially draw your attention would include:

1. A rational system of philosophy does not begin its formulation with ethical premises as its starting point. The province of morality (ethics) presupposes numerous ideas, conclusions and positions underlying itself, for instance, metaphysics (the proper view of reality, existence and nature, including questions regarding "what is the nature of man?") and epistemology (what is knowledge and what are man's proper methods of achieving it?). One dare not attempt to develop a system of philosophy as a whole by starting mid-stream (as with ethics as its starting point), for far too many presumptions will lie at its root, and since those presumptions are already taken as a worthy starting point, they would lie outside the scope of scrutiny they should otherwise be held to bear.
2. What is the nature of 'civilization' and what does it signify for man? Again, civilization is not a primary, but a consequence of numerous prior factors. It is, in essence, a product of the effort of a large group of men voluntarily engaged in the production and trade of values. The emphasis here is on the voluntariness of action, as one cannot be forced to be civil and rational, he must be rational by choice. Rand defined 'civilization' as "the progress toward a society of privacy... the process of setting man free from [other] men" (For the New Intellectual, p. 84). This view of civilization is completely compatible with the primary virtues of the Objectivist ethics, (e.g., rationality, self-esteem, purpose, independence, etc.). For more discussion of the Objectivist ethics I would refer you to The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, particularly chapter one, titled "The Objectivist Ethics." See also Galt's Speech in her novel Atlas Shrugged, which is also quoted in her book For the New Intellectual.
3. When an Objectivist states that Objectivist ethics is "morality based on individual happiness," he may mean something entirely different than what those unfamiliar with Objectivist philosophy may initially believe it means. Again, the above sources, primarily Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, will offer you a more concise explication of what this means. But as I acknowledge in a) above, Objectivism is very careful to recognize the hierarchical nature of knowledge in the integration of its various doctrines. Just as one cannot hope to perform differential calculus with any proficiency prior to understanding the principles that govern why 2+2=4, one cannot hope to develop a rational system of philosophy by beginning midstream. Morality, according to Rand, is defined as "a code of values which guides man's choices and actions - the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life" ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13). This definition is crucial, but it is far from a starting point. Rand continues:

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all - and why? [Ibid.]

Rand's answers to these questions are eloquently articulated in that essay. Rand's overall argument is that a code of values (i.e., a moral philosophy) proper to man must take into account the essentials of his nature as a living organism capable of rational thought. As a living organism, man constantly faces a fundamental alternative: existence vs. non-existence. Since man's existence is not guaranteed to him, he must act in order to ensure the sustenance of his life. The moral code proper to this task, argues Rand, is the morality of rational self-interest. This view of morality is fundamentally opposed to those views of morality that have dominated the history of philosophic thought, such as religious pietism or secular altruism. Rand's model of morality is about the individual's achievement and protection of values, not their sacrifice or surrender as pursued by systems antithetical to Rand's.

Additionally, instead of commandments or so-called 'categorical imperatives,' Objectivism resolves moral issues with hypothetical imperatives. Where commandments and 'categorical imperatives' entail unquestionable 'duty'-bound exhortations to actions, regardless of their value-achieving potential (and quite often intentionally contrary to one's values), the hypothetical imperative is strictly goal-oriented: IF I should achieve X, I must do action Y. For instance, if I want to enjoy my life, I must feed and nourish my body. If I want to feed and nourish my body, I must earn the values that make this action possible. If I want to earn the values that make this action possible, I must learn a skill and trade my effort with those who value it, if I want to learn a skill, I must learn to think, and if I want to think, I must learn how to identify reality, etc. The essentials of Objectivist ethics are suggested by its subtitle: The morality of rational self-interest. See sources cited for more explanation.

4. In considering the defining and establishing of political law, we must recognize the relationship which politics, as a philosophical province, has in regard to morality. Since man is a unit (not "mankind" or "society"), we must begin with man as the initial reference point. Thus, we must begin with ethics/morality, which concerns the actions and choices of the individual. Before we can hope to establish any fundamental principles in the area of politics, which is morality applied to interpersonal relationships, - i.e., before we can deduce the principles proper to the interrelationship of individuals, we must first understand the principles proper to the unit, i.e., to man. The task of politics is to define "the principles of a proper social system" ("Philosophy: Who Needs It," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 4). In her essay "Choose Your Issues" from The Objectivist Newsletter (Jan. 1962, I), Rand makes the following clarification:

Above you had asked: "If each individual has different moral requirements, how then does a society create laws?" While it is completely true that each of us choose different values in life (indeed, those values may change over the course of a man's life), the fact that we must all live by values is undeniable. 'Value' is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 15). Essentially speaking, we each must certainly value - in varying degrees, of course -roughly the same things, for instance food, shelter, warmth, clothing, education, work-skills, productive efficiency and ability, etc. As the values become more abstract, such as education, they require greater cognitive development - and the freedom to make that development possible - indeed to choose them as values and to develop the means necessary for their achievement. (For example, the throes of coming up with college tuition, etc.)

But your question rightly assumes that each individual has his own set of values. No man can come into your home, Mr. X, and force you to value something you do not already value. Values are not subject to force, commandments or coercion. Values inextirpably belong under the jurisprudence of volition: we must hold the values we have by choice. Thus, Rand made the following point:

Thus, while you and I most certainly value wholesome nourishment (this is a value demanded by our nature as a living organism), you may prefer beef dishes while I may prefer seafood. You may prefer a large luxurious home full of young children of your own, while I may prefer a small secluded apartment populated by myself alone. You may prefer to follow an engineering course in college, while I may prefer to study foreign languages. You may prefer to work for a large corporation, while I may prefer to start my own business. These are choices, and as such they reflect what we value. So far, I do not see how our values necessitate any chaos at all, for we needn't trade with each other if we do not value what the other has to offer. According to capitalism, as defined by Objectivism, these facts are not in conflict in any manner.

The point I am slowly attempting to establish here is that a political philosophy proper to man must take into account the fact that man is an individual and that he must be free to pursue the values of his choice. The issue most at stake in politics is the problem of the initiation of force. While it may be the case that my neighbor does not approve of my choice to study foreign languages in school, for instance, according to the Objectivist politics - i.e., laissez-faire capitalism (as defined by Rand's principles), my neighbor has no right to impede my choice to follow my choice to study foreign language. (Yes, this is probably a bad example, but I am pressed for time, and this serves to put the proper principles in focus, even though they may not be articulated explicitly here; for such an articulation, I refer you to Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and to several other of her primary sources, including those identified above.)

Above, you had also asked: "How then does a civilization based on individualistic concepts of morality enforce any law at all?"

Since any answer to this question will ultimately require some identification of the nature and purpose of government, I offer you the following from Rand:

Thus, to answer your question: Through the establishment of a government so defined.

Do you believe that civilization can sustain itself above chaos only by its members' sacrificing their need for happiness? Do you believe that, for civilization to be achieved, that the citizens of a society should not relish life, should not pursue their own values, and should not learn how to exist for their own sakes in harmonious co-existence with others, and that they should adopt norms and standards which make these things impossible? What exactly are your presumptions here about society, and what conflict are you anticipating to find between man's happiness as a standard value of his life and civilization as a standard value of society? Are you keen to sacrifice your own happiness, Mr. X, so that 'society' can achieve civilization? What is the idea of civilization that you have in mind here? According to the Objectivist model, I see no conflicts between its individualism and its model of objective government. America is living proof of the power of individual, selfish happiness as a prime motivator of peace and cultural advancement. America's unprecedented success as a nation can only be attributed to the profit motive of those who made that success a reality, and the profit motive is a virtue of man's rational pursuit of happiness. Perhaps you see a conflict? If so, please explain. I would like to know your thoughts.

"What if what makes me happy is to bash in the heads of those who don't subscribe to my 'morality'? How does objectivism handle this situation?"

This is a very easy question to answer according to Objectivist principles. Since bashing the heads of those who do not subscribe to your moral views would entail the violation of their rights (we each have the right to conduct our mental activity according to our own choices - this is a fundamental in Objectivist politics), a government proper to man's life, under whose objective control the retaliatory use of physical force is entrusted, would necessarily intervene in order to protect the rights of those who hold to different views. For more discussion of these principles, I again refer you to the writings of Rand and the Objectivist corpus.

Also, I would be inclined to ask (among other things):

1. how (if at all) do you derive happiness from bashing in the heads of those who do not share your view, and
2. do you arbitrarily place a premium on the obligatory agreement of others to your views as a precondition to your happiness?

If so, why? Are you not willing to earn your happiness at your own expense? Etc.

The very fact that so many critics of Objectivism try to raise objections against its philosophical principles with such contentions, coming routinely from the religious, only uncovers a false dichotomy presumed by such positions. That dichotomy pertains to a particular view of morality influenced by religious thought: That man's actions are either driven by obedience to God's commands, or they are irrational, violent and criminal. However, this dichotomous view of morality, which is prevalent from the religious pulpit to the politician's podium, presupposes two variants of the primacy of consciousness view of reality and their consequential fallout in ethics. That dichotomy reduces to the view that either ethics is determined by the whims of a magical, universe-ruling consciousness, or it is determined by the whims of man. Either side of the coin, however, takes for granted that ethics must be rooted in some form of consciousness unbound to and unconcerned with the facts of reality. Objectivism dispels this false dichotomy by informing an objective metaphysics and by acknowledging the primacy of reason over emotion as a means of identifying the facts of reality and determining right action.

"Objectivists often corner the religious with the challenge to 'prove' that God exists. Ayn Rand's exclamation that 'Existence Exists' is no less subjective and impossible to prove than that of 'God Exists'. What Objectivism fails to ask, and could not seek to answer is the deeper question of, 'Why is there something instead of nothing'? If existence exists, then why does it exist? To answer that 'it exists for its own sake' is circular logic, and does not truly answer the question. In truth, Objectivism cannot answer this seemingly fundamental question, because it eliminates the possibility of any reality beyond mere human perception."

While I am not aware of the actions of all Objectivists, I find it unlikely that most would seriously challenge religious believers to 'prove' that God exists. Since Objectivists (at least the more astute ones) realize that religious beliefs are arbitrary, anyone claiming to be an Objectivist who so challenges a religious believer most likely does so as a theoretical exercise (since such a challenge cannot be met), perhaps in order to clarify a point or to serve as instruction (such as any challenge one may find at this website). While it is true that one cannot prove that existence exists (indeed, the fact of existence is a necessary precondition to any proof and therefore beyond 'proof'), the recognition 'existence exists' is far from a subjective assertion.

Subjectivism, in metaphysics, is the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness. (Hence your recognition above that the claim 'God exists' is a subjective assertion is correct.) This view, which is founded on the primacy of consciousness view of reality, is rejected by Objectivism as invalid. The primacy of consciousness, for those who are unclear on objective metaphysical principles, can be extremely elusive to one's detection. Observe the hypothetical question you offer as an example above: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" How could such a question be answered without presupposing existence in that answer? Indeed, it cannot.

Because, as you recognize above, any attempt to answer such a question would necessarily result in conceptual errors (mostly presumptive errors and stolen concepts), Objectivism recognizes that such a question is itself invalid. After all, one must start somewhere. But while Objectivists recognize that the proper starting point to rational cognition is with reality itself ('existence exists'), religious philosophy attempts - albeit implicitly - to begin with a form of consciousness as its starting point. However, consciousness presupposes existence (i.e., a 'stolen concept' fallacy is committed).

Furthermore, indulging the religionist, what can he say when asked "Why does God exist?" If the religionist believes that the question "Why does existence exist?" is valid, then why would he not also accept into the same sphere of validity the question "Why does God exist?" The common answer usually amounts to "Because he must..." (popularly phrased as "Because God is an inherently necessary being" or in some terminology amounting to this). That answers nothing, and merely postpones a response to the question, for indeed the next obvious question is: "Why must God exist?" (I.e., for what purpose?) Already, we are committing stolen concept after stolen concept, but the religious believer usually does not recognize this, but insists that we accept his claims without further scrutiny.

Moreover, Objectivism does not argue that "existence exists for its own sake," as if existence itself were an entity in possession of evaluative faculties preferring its 'own sake' over 'something else' (indeed, there is 'nothing else'). Objectivism merely recognizes that existence is an irreducible primary beyond which one cannot posit anything (since the notion 'anything' presupposes existence). The problem here is that the religionist is never satisfied until he feels comfortable in positing a form of consciousness as the origin of existence (hence 'god' or 'allah' etc.). Such notions are completely arbitrary and do not require refutation. (What is there to refute?) Indeed, existence exists.

A study of the Objectivist metaphysics would be recommended at this point. For this I suggest the following:

• Rand, Ayn, Philosophy: Who Needs It

• Peikoff, Leonard, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

• Kelley, David, The Primacy of Existence (audiotape)

• Bernstein, Andrew, The Primacy of Consciousness Versus the Objectivist Ethics (audiotape)

Other references can be offered on request. For a web-based resource that provides most of these materials, click on over to Second Renaissance Books.

"Objectivism accuses religion of throwing reason to the wind, but this is completely untrue. What Objectivism seeks to do is redefine the definition of 'reason': Reason must be defined within the parameters of human senses and Man's ability to conciously percieve. Objectivism has confined itself to the limited cognitive abilities of man, preferring instead to toss aside the deeper possibilities of realities beyond our perception." [sic]

Epistemologically, Objectivism is only concerned with Man's ability to achieve knowledge of reality (i.e., of existence). If the religionist believes that knowledge of reality can be achieved by Man by dispensing with the use of or reliance upon his senses, he is free to offer alternatives (and we've seen what happens when alternatives to objectivity are attempted). However, he would be invited to communicate just what those alternatives to sense perception include, how they function and how they can be tested and confirmed through some means that does not require sense perception. This would rule out e-mail, since Mr. Thorn relies on his vision to read his e-mail, and vision is one of Mr. Thorn's preferred forms of sense perception.

"Does contemplating such an existence translate into non-reason..."?

No, worse. Contemplating "such an existence" is, literally, NONSENSE (since the 'knowledge' so claimed is said to have been achieved without the use of man's senses).

"...simply because such proposed realities cannot be immediately perceived by human senses?"

Remember that Objectivism does not deny the conceptual level of consciousness (in fact, it is the only philosophy in existence that is compatible with the consistent development of philosophical principles that coherently recognize the conceptual level of man's consciousness; see Binswanger, Harry, The Metaphysics of Consciousness [audiotape] for some exciting points in this regard). Thus, the presumption that something must be "immediately perceived" by the senses in order to be accepted as knowledge is a bit naive (see Peikoff's discussion of the nature of proofs in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, particularly chapter 4: "Objectivity").

"Is it the Objectivists stance that Man's ability to percieve should be limited to observable phenomena?" [sic]

Quite simply, it is the Objectivist's stance that Man's ability to perceive is limited to that which exists. This is axiomatic.

"When challenged to prove that God exists, many Christians (most, actually) would resort to Scripture, which would be meaningless to any Objectivist. When challenged with proving God's existence, my immediate response is, 'prove that God DOESN'T exist'. Any attempt by Objectivists to 'debunk' religion is ultimately futile, simply because of its rejection of any metaphysical or supernatural concept of reality. God and religion in general trancend percieved reality, making it impossible for Objecivism to form any effective argument against it." [sic]

You are correct to point out that, "When challenged to prove that God exists, many Christians (most, actually) would resort to Scripture, which would be meaningless to any Objectivist." This is true. The writings of a primitive, superstitious society of tribal-conscious people given to hysterical supernatural ideas are quite unimportant to most Objectivists, save perhaps for historic philosophical and mythological analysis and similar interests. What some ancient Palestinian is claimed to have performed 2,000+years ago has no bearing on man's life today.

As for the 'challenge' to "prove that God DOESN'T exist," the Objectivist merely points out the fact that the onus of proof falls on those who assert the existential positive. The assertion 'Santa Claus exists' is an example of an existentially positive claim; it attempts to posit the existence of something. 'Proof' - since it presupposes existence, relies on evidence, which also presupposes existence. There is no such thing as 'evidence for the non-existent.' Evidence applies to that which exists, not to that which one merely wishes to exist. Also, the Objectivist has no obligation to 'prove' that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or Blarko the Blubbergod do not exist any more than he has to 'prove' that the Judeo-Christian (or any other) god does not exist.

As for the statement, "Any attempt by Objectivists to 'debunk' religion is ultimately futile," one must wonder how honestly this position is held, for certainly my criticism of religion, as entailed in my website, has generated numerous replies and attempts at rebuttal in their response. Certainly, if one can dismiss criticism of religious philosophy from an Objectivist view point as 'futile' from the start, why would I receive so many counter-challenges from the religious? Apparently some consider my arguments to be a substantial threat to their beliefs.

Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Religionists take as a sign of confidence the fact that their claims are conveniently swathed in the arbitrary. An arbitrary is neither true nor false since it is not an attempt to identify reality as it is a claim "for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual" (Peikoff, Leonard, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 164; see pp. 163-167 for Peikoff's discussion of the nature of arbitrary claims). But this confidence is unearned, as it is assumed without arguing for one's conclusions. And when those conclusions are finally supplied supportive argumentation, the result is fallacy upon fallacy and error upon error. Even when these errors and fallacies are pointed out, religionists run to yet more arguments claimed to be free of those errors, only to commit yet further errors. Theistic apologetics is not a matter of trying honestly to identify reality, but one of ulterior motive and the pursuit of the unearned.

Mr. X, thank you again for your kind e-mail and thoughtful remarks. I enjoyed sharing the good news of Rational philosophy with you. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Best regards,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________