Moral Dilemma #2

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If someone adopts a short-term perspective and wants to survive then he concludes that food is a value because it is practical. To such a shortsighted person food is a value no matter whether it is obtained through productive work or theft.

The farsighted person does not only consider the effects of his actions on the immediate future but possibly on the rest of his life and chooses production over theft. Does such a farsighted person consider food obtained by theft as a value but as a value that is so small in comparison to the values he could loose in the long run? Or does he consider food obtained by theft as no value at all because of the way it is obtained?

←

Food is a genuine value, but where it is in the hierarchy of values depends on the context.

Let's say it is an emergency. You are starving and there is food in a locked cabin, but the owner isn't around to ask permission to buy it or take it. Your short run AND long run self-interest may be to break in and take it since, if you don't, you won't live long enough to have a "long run."

Keeping a proper hierarchy includes understanding that morality is a means to life and happiness -- NOT the other way around --- so you don't sacrifice your life to be "moral."

[Sarah Beth 0]

I'm still working on my epiphany.

Suppose pursuing an object that can have positive effects on you in the short-term results in harm to you in the long-term. Do you really think that the harm is caused by the object? Isn't it caused by the pursuit (one's actions)?

←

Value assumes a valuer.

Other than that I don't know quite what you mean. I don't think I said that at all.

[Dufresne 0]

Value assumes a valuer.

Other than that I don't know quite what you mean. I don't think I said that at all.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote. Here is the part I didn't get:

A value gained in the short term which is harmful to oneself in the long-range is a contradiction.

Can you give an example for such a value (or non-value)?

[Dufresne 0]

I think I finally found an answer to my question about the value of goods obtained through fraud and want to share it with you. My question was whether goods obtained through fraud (or any other activity resulting in harm in the long-term) were values at all.

I had so much difficulty finding an answer because I had a wrong understanding of what values are. In Ayn Rand’s definition a value is something “one acts to gain and/or keep”. I knew that values are not intrinsic but I had this idea that something can be a value to me if it has the potential to benefit my life but – and this is the crucial part – without me taking any action towards it. Identifying that a given existent could be beneficial to my life is not sufficient to make it a value. I need to act to make it a value.

Now the answer to my question is simple. Goods obtained through activities resulting in harm to me in the long run are no values. These goods might very well have benefits to my life in the short run but since acquiring these goods has negative effects on my life in the long run, I choose not to act towards getting them because I identify those goods as not benefiting my life. And since I choose not to pursue such goods, they are, by definition, no values.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I realize that this thread is more than seven months old, but while reading the new book Ayn Rand Answers I came across two answers by Miss Rand having to do with lying. Though they do not directly address the specifics in the quote from Leonard Peikoff that Alex provided here ← (which began a discussion that revealed two opposing views on lying under certain circumstances), I nevertheless thought her words would be relevant and of interest.

Question: "If you are discussing an issue with somebody, is it proper not to volunteer the whole truth?"

That is a very vicious form of lying. There are many situations in which you don't have to answer, particularly certain family situations. If you disagree with your aprents -- and incidentally, you should never attempt to convert them -- and you don't want them to be unhappy, don't answer, or if they force the issue, answer the minimum. That's all right. What I regard as vicious is when you agree to discuss an issue with someone, yet you do not tell the whole truth. That's more misleading than simply lying, which is bad enough. It's especially evil to claim honesty when you are deceiving somebody. This is why the oath you're asked to take in court is so wise: You're supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Question: "Did you say that we don't have to tell the whole truth to our parents if it made them unhappy?"

No. Someone's unhappiness is not a proper standard; it's an emotional standard, and is thus irrelevant in judging what to do. One shouldn't lie to one's parents to protect them in a fool's paradise. You should either tell them the truth or refuse to answer. For example, if they suspect a love affair and you don't want to admit it, say you'd rather not discuss it. Don't say, "No, I'm perfectly virtuous," which only does violence to your own convictions. The fact that something will make a parent or friend unhappy is no reason to lie to them.

The only exception (which doesn't apply here) involves doctors witholding the truth from their patients. There are cases where, if a patient does not know the seriousness of his illness, he'll be more likely to recover. Here it's up to the doctor to judge the evidence. But that's not a question of making a patient unhappy. Happiness is no justification for dishonesty.

The most relevant part to me, re our previous discussion on lying, was

"For example, if they suspect a love affair and you don't want to admit it, say you'd rather not discuss it. Don't say, 'No, I'm perfectly virtuous,' which only does violence to your own convictions."

[ADS 0]

The most relevant part to me, re our previous discussion on lying, was

"For example, if they suspect a love affair and you don't want to admit it, say you'd rather not discuss it. Don't say, 'No, I'm perfectly virtuous,' which only does violence to your own convictions."

←

Well, that's interesting. Thanks for transcribing this, Stephen.

Just so this does not cast doubt on my speculation regarding Dr. Peikoff's position on this issue, Dr. Peikoff discusses in his "Understanding Objectivism" course why it is indeed moral to lie under the very sort of circumstances which I discussed earlier in this thread, and which Andy Bernstein discussed in the "Ask the Experts" forum ←.

So, I don't know whether Dr. Peikoff and Miss Rand actually disagreed on this point or not. On the one hand, I find that somewhat hard to believe, given that Dr. Peikoff chose to state his view on this issue in OPAR; but regardless, the quote that Stephen provided is definitely probative, and cannot be swept under the rug.

[Paul's Here 0]

Well, that's interesting.  Thanks for transcribing this, Stephen.

Just so this does not cast doubt on my speculation regarding Dr. Peikoff's position on this issue, Dr. Peikoff discusses in his "Understanding Objectivism" course why it is indeed moral to lie under the very sort of circumstances which I discussed earlier in this thread, and which Andy Bernstein discussed in the "Ask the Experts" forum ←.

So, I don't know whether Dr. Peikoff and Miss Rand actually disagreed on this point or not.  On the one hand, I find that somewhat hard to believe, given that Dr. Peikoff chose to state his view on this issue in OPAR; but regardless, the quote that Stephen provided is definitely probative, and cannot be swept under the rug.

←

Based upon my own first hand experiences with attempting to "lie to protect my privacy," I have to agree with Miss Rand's views. Without going into specifics, the lie was addressed to my mother and in-laws. After some time, the lie became superfluous and no longer served its function. The only thing that happened was that I was trapped in maintaining the lie because I was afraid of hurting them, not by telling them the truth, but by them finding out I was lying to them! The truth eventually came out and everyone was surprised, but we all moved on with our lives. Indeed, the lie did do violence to my convictions and it took a long time to psychologically recover.

I remember reading Andy's answer and disagreed with it. The point being that saying "It's none of your business" is exactly what should be said rather than lying, even if it "obviously" implies the answer to the question. That implication is in the mind of the prying person and not in your answer.

The question of lying to those who threaten force is an obvious answer and should not be mixed up with lying to those in every day or normal interactions with people. Saying "it's none of your business" or "I'm not going to answer you" is the best policy.

[ADS 0]

Based upon my own first hand experiences with attempting to "lie to protect my privacy," I have to agree with Miss Rand's views.

←

I just wanted to say that I have no interest in debating this issue further -- neither with regard to what Miss Rand's position was (which was never at issue in the thread originally), nor with regard to what the correct position is -- so, while others can certainly reopen this debate if they wish, I just wanted to indicate my lack of participation from the outset.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

So, I don't know whether Dr. Peikoff and Miss Rand actually disagreed on this point or not.  On the one hand, I find that somewhat hard to believe, given that Dr. Peikoff chose to state his view on this issue in OPAR; but regardless, the quote that Stephen provided is definitely probative, and cannot be swept under the rug.

←

I don't see a disagreement between Miss Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's positions on lying in order to protect one's privcay. Miss Rand's example involved one's parents. Dr. Peikoff's example involved snoopers. The context of each example is different. Parents have a legitimate interest in the personal life of their grown children, and are likely to keep the truth to themselves. Snoopers are eager to find out details about one's personal life so they can spread the news. Consider the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military. It means that if one is asked, one does not have to tell. One does not owe the truth to those who will harm one's military career.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't see a disagreement between Miss Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's positions on lying in order to protect one's privcay. Miss Rand's example involved one's parents. Dr. Peikoff's example involved snoopers. The context of each example is different.

←

Yes, as I myself acknowledged when I posted the quote, the specifics are different in the sense of the people involved. However, there is also similarity in the general sense, namely a person suspects a love affair and you do not want to tell. The question is, how much weight to give to the specific person involved, and how much weight to give to the general case? Unless a more detailed quote by Ayn Rand eventually surfaces, I think an argument can be made on both sides. In any case, as Alex noted, the quote is significant and cannot be simply dismissed.

[RationalBiker 0]

Going back to the original question, I'd want to understand why I felt "obligated" in the first place before I would decide what answer I would give.

PS: Hi Stephen and Betsy! Long time no see, er, or read...

[Betsy Speicher 0]

PS:  Hi Stephen and Betsy!  Long time no see, er, or read...

←

Hi Rational Cop.

Good to see you on THE FORUM! Feel free to stick around and contribute your experiences and insights to the discussions.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Going back to the original question, I'd want to understand why I felt "obligated" in the first place before I would decide what answer I would give.

I take the "obligated" part of the question to simply mean that you cannot really ignore a question put to you by a friend or acquaintance. You can answer the question in a million different ways, including "I don't want to talk about it," but you can't really make believe the question wasn't asked. Anyway, that is how I took the meaning of "obligated."

PS:  Hi Stephen and Betsy!  Long time no see, er, or read...

←

Nice to have "the enforcer" back!

[RationalBiker 0]

Nice to have "the enforcer" back! 

←

[clinteastwoodvoice] You're probably asking yourself, did I ask 5 personal questions, or 6? Do you feel lucky punk? [/clinteastwoodvoice]

I'd probably say something like, "That's not something I care to discuss." However, in general, I think the specific close friend, and the specific very personal question may change my answer.

For instance, I have one close personal friend with whom I'm reasonably comfortable discussing personal sexual issues with, that I would not otherwise share with a couple of other close personal friends.

That said, some very close personal questions I'll answer to just about anyone. "Why I'm glad you asked, I'm an aspiring Objectivist."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'd probably say something like, "That's not something I care to discuss."  However, in general, I think the specific close friend, and the specific very personal question may change my answer.

For instance, I have one close personal friend with whom I'm reasonably comfortable discussing personal sexual issues with, that I would not otherwise share with a couple of other close personal friends.

That said, some very close personal questions I'll answer to just about anyone.  "Why I'm glad you asked, I'm an aspiring Objectivist."

←

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Jay P 0]

I think I'd be justified in lying to protect my privacy. But I also think that there's not likely to be much necessity for a person to do this, if he treats his privacy like a value in the first place.

Today, there are many people in our culture who just do not seem to put any value on their privacy. People will tell all about all sorts of intimate details of their lives, and do so to complete strangers, or at least to people who have no business knowing. You can see this on the internet today, for example: there are venues for discussion that have a large "kiss-and-tell" section, it seems. I have heard coworkers tell people at work intimate details of their sex lives. So I think the assumption often is that "of course your life's an open book."

But a person who behaves this way sets the expectation that he'll be willing to tell anything to anybody. So, if he were to answer "that's none of your business", it probably would be a red flag that he had something to hide.

However, if I don't make a habit of telling other people personal things they have no business knowing, then I also don't get a reputation of being somebody who doesn't care about his privacy. It's been my experience that such a person is less likely to attract the questions of busybodies. If such a person answers "that's none of your business", it probably would not suggest that he had something to hide. Because in this case, being private is just the way he is, and people have come to expect that.

.....

Also, one can answer a question in a way that really does leave the other person guessing. I can recall doing this twice. Once, I was interviewing for a job at company X; they knew I was also interviewing at another company. But I didn't want to tell them which one it was. Somebody at company X asked me, in a friendly sort of way, "is the other company you're interviewing with company Y?" I just looked at him, smiled, and said "I'm not going to say; maybe it is company Y, and then maybe it isn't." Later on (after I actually had begun working at company X), he admitted that my answer to him had left him wondering whether or not he'd guessed right.

Another time, I did the same thing: just answering to the effect "Well, maybe so, and then again, maybe not..." when a nosey coworker wanted to know something about my personal life. I this case, my answer actually confused her, and she guessed wrong, even though I hadn't lied or denied anything.

There are probably other ways to tactfully deflect prying questions in a way that doesn't make the truth obvious.