A Contradiction

[CodyD 0]

Upon rereading Atlas Shrugged, I found the premise "motives don't alter facts" quite often. I also saw it appear in many of her other books, including Capitalism:The Unkown Ideal. However, slightly apart from her work, and from my own life, I have also drawn the conclusion that what is necessesary is not a sin. This is what I have been using to fight the concept of original sin in Christianity-they say that sex is a sin, therefore everyone sins because it must be done if mankind is going to survive. But, anything that is necessary cannot be rationally considered a sin. I thought this was a good, well-backed train of thought, although there are plenty of other defenses against sex. But, being reminded of the premise that motives don't alter facts, I realize that there is most clearly a contradiction. One says that-if you must do it is not a sin, the other says-certain acts are sins no matter what reason you do them, no matter what necessity.

It is known that contradictions do not exist. Dr. Hugh Akston and Franciso d'Anconia have both told us to do one thing in the event of an apparent contradiction-check your premises. Which of these premises are to be checked? Which one might I be slightly misinterpreting? Does one do anything if it is of necessity for survival, or does one avoid certain acts, no matter what, as motives do not alter the facts of your actions?

[Jay P 0]

Upon rereading Atlas Shrugged, I found the premise "motives don't alter facts" quite often.  I also saw it appear in many of her other books, including Capitalism:The Unkown Ideal.  However, slightly apart from her work, and from my own life, I have also drawn the conclusion that what is necessesary is not a sin.  This is what I have been using to fight the concept of original sin in Christianity-they say that sex is a sin, therefore everyone sins because it must be done if mankind is going to survive.  But, anything that is necessary cannot be rationally considered a sin.  I thought this was a good, well-backed train of thought, although there are plenty of other defenses against sex.  But, being reminded of the premise that motives don't alter facts, I realize that there is most clearly a contradiction.  One says that-if you must do it is not a sin, the other says-certain acts are sins no matter what reason you do them, no matter what necessity. 

It is known that contradictions do not exist.  Dr. Hugh Akston and Franciso d'Anconia have both told us to do one thing in the event of an apparent contradiction-check your premises.  Which of these premises are to be checked?  Which one might I be slightly misinterpreting?  Does one do anything if it is of necessity for survival, or does one avoid certain acts, no matter what, as motives do not alter the facts of your actions?

←

It might help to give some examples of what you're thinking of.

What is an example of the "motives don't alter facts" premise that you're talking about from Atlas Shrugged? Are you meaning this to be a principle in ethics?

Are you saying that you think you've found something that Objectivism says is a sin, and yet it's something you must do? If so, what's an example of that? (I have no idea what such an example might be. I assume that by "must do" you mean that this is an action that is necessary for the life of a rational man, and not that it is a whim that one feels he "must" satisfy, but that would be another question to ask.) Or are you saying there are things that are necessary that other philosophies regard as a sin?

Thus, I'm not sure just what contradiction you're trying to resolve. But since it sounds like it's in ethics, here's something else to keep in mind: don't be confused by emergency situations. That is, if the examples you're thinking of are emergency situations, I'd leave them out, and try to understand ethics first as it applies to the life of a normal man in non-emergency situations.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Does one do anything if it is of necessity for survival, or does one avoid certain acts, no matter what, as motives do not alter the facts of your actions?

←

While it is true that motives don't alter facts, if you try to live a life in accordance with the facts and fail, it is a mistake, but not a sin. You just correct your mistake and continue on living -- even better than before.

Objectivism isn't a matter of "Thou shalt nots" and "avoiding certain acts." It is about valuing and understanding how to win your values.

[Ed from OC 0]

You may be misunderstanding the phrase "motives don't alter facts." The point is, regardless of one's intentions or desires, one can't wish reality to change what it is. I may not like the law of gravity, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what it is, and that it is real.

Now, motives do alter one's moral evaluation. Suppose a car hits a pedestrian. If the driver had an unforeseen blow-out and lost control for a crucial second when he hit him, so that it was an honest accident, one would not properly equate that with, say, a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian, nor the psycho ex-wife of the pedestrian deliberately hitting him. In these cases, as often occurs in law, intent matters. And of course, the motives themselves are facts: each driver had a different motive that was just as real as the next driver's.

Also, there's another issue involved. If there are no options, morality doesn't apply. For instance, we have no option about obeying the law of gravity. We just obey it. It doesn't make sense to praise or condemn someone for obeying it. It just happens.

Now note that this applies to the concept of original sin. How can *I* be guilty and need forgiveness for the sex my parents had in order to give me life? I did not make a choice for them to sleep together. Yet, Christian doctrine holds that I am somehow tainted by the choices other people have made, even before I existed!

So there is another way in which the doctrine of original sin should be rejected, and I think it is more essential than the argument you presented.

As to the claim, "what is necessary is not a sin," I have to ask: necessary for what end? If I deem it necessary to kill a witness to prevent him from giving evidence that would convict me of a crime I committed, that is still immoral. If I have to lie to hide a theft I committed, that's still wrong.

If man's life is one's moral standard, so that what promotes his life is moral, then in that sense, yes, what is necessary (for him to live) is moral, meaning most fundamentally, that reason is the cardinal virtue (since his rational mind is the fundamental source of all of his values). Note that this makes what is necessary for his life not just a non-sin, but a positive value or virtue. So I would rephrase your point to: "what is necessary for a man's life is a tremendous virtue."

Also let me echo Betsy's point. Most ethical codes (especially from religion) are based on altruism, and essentially place virtue in the renunciation of one's values. (For instance, Catholics give up pleasures for lent as a sign of their dedication to their faith.) Yet Objectivism takes the opposite view, and holds that one should proudly and greedily pursue one's values and fight fiercely to gain and keep them. The former view pits morality against achievement and happiness in life; the latter harmonizes them, recognizing that the moral is the practical.

[CodyD 0]

Thank you, that helps clear it up. It is solved rather easily, now that I see it. I did slightly misinterpret motives don't alter facts, as well as that which is necessary can't be a sin. Also, pardon my terms, I think it would be more appropriate to say "can't be immoral". As I evaluated, and looked at what you had said, I realized that "what is necessary can't be immoral" does not extend past one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When I saw this, there was no contradiction, as then you are no longer doing anything immoral. Another dilemma I came across is that it can often be difficult to determine what is "dire necessity" and that once you have, there is usually a moral way out. The "what is necessary for man's life is tremendous virtue" was very apt and is a slight backing to what I just said-it takes tremendous virtue to solve a dilemma, not a step of immorality.

I saw the "motives don't alter facts" in several ways- the fact that that man needs a job does not mean that you have a job to give him. The fact that you want a peaceful society doesn't change the fact that what you're working for is a destructive one. Many of these, however, are misinterpretations of "dire necessity". But yes, I have to say that "What is necessary is tremendous virtue" packs all the meaning. To act, to get what it is that is necessary, you must show virtue, not resort to acts that are immoral.

[Ed from OC 0]

I did slightly misinterpret motives don't alter facts, as well as that which is necessary can't be a sin.  Also, pardon my terms, I think it would be more appropriate to say "can't be immoral".  As I evaluated, and looked at what you had said, I realized that "what is necessary can't be immoral" does not extend past one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

←

1. The difference between "can't be immoral" and "tremendous virtue" is vast, which is why I stressed the point. One can claim that the necessities of life are amoral, meaning morality doesn't apply to those sorts of issues. For instance, some people (such as a few libertarians I've dealt with) hold that morality doesn't apply outside a social setting, that morality is a matter of outlining proper social behavior. So if I get stoned in my home, there's nothing right or wrong about it. But the fact is that my judgement is temporarily impaired and I run the risk of permanent damage. These things are not in my self-interest. So certainly, if my life is the standard for moral judgement, this would be immoral, and thus morality does apply.

2. As you state in the last sentence in the quoted material above, you imply that individual rights are the limit of this idea that the requirements for man's life aren't immoral. Not so! If a rational being is to live, it must use its rational faculty. That's a more fundamental (epistemological and moral) issue than individual rights (politics). Another example is the issue of charity: is it moral to donate money? To whom? How much? Under what circumstances? One can discuss these issues without bringing up the issue of rights or politics, and the standard by which to determine the answers to this must be consistent with man's life as the standard of morality.

[CodyD 0]

I believe I left that a little unclear. When I say "'what is necessary can't be immoral' does not extend past one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I meant that one cannot say what is necessary is moral in infringement of another's rights.

[Megan 0]

But, being reminded of the premise that motives don't alter facts, I realize that there is most clearly a contradiction. One says that-if you must do it is not a sin, the other says-certain acts are sins no matter what reason you do them, no matter what necessity.

I think that the answer to this question has another variable in it. You have to consider what people think must be done. Some people will make rash decisions because they think they must and that it is the only option, however sometimes they are simply overreacting. I think the best rule to go by is the first you described, that if you need to do it, it may not be a sin. But you should always be sure of the need to do it and that you are not acting irrationally.