The (Possible) Virtue of Benevolence

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I’m still sorting this out for myself. Would I be correct to say that acting benevolently is an application of justice within the context you’ve stated (when a person’s character is unknown to you)?

Exactly.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The following is Kelley's argument for benevolence as a virtue from Chapter 6 of LSO (here), page 236.

What is wrong, factually and logically, with this argument?

Premises:

1) One should interact with others only through trade.

2) To discover and exploit opportunities for trade, one must treat other people as potential trading partners.

3) One treats other people as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity, and individuality.

(Kelley notes that 2) & 3) are based on the following inductive evidence: Psychology, introspection, anthropology,

history, economics)

Conclusion:

One needs a commitment to treating others as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity and individuality and acting accordingly.

[PhilO 0]

The following is Kelley's argument for benevolence as a virtue from Chapter 6 of LSO (here), page 236.

What is wrong, factually and logically, with this argument?

Premises:

1) One should interact with others only through trade.

2) To discover and exploit opportunities for trade, one must treat other people as potential trading partners.

3) One treats other people as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity, and individuality.

(Kelley notes that 2) & 3) are based on the following inductive evidence: Psychology, introspection, anthropology,

history, economics)

Conclusion:

One needs a commitment to treating others as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity and individuality and acting accordingly.

I don't see a syllogism there so I'm not sure of the connection between what you've got listed as premises and conclusion. But as you've listed it, premise #3 assumes the conclusion, so if it's presented as a logical argument, that would be the logical error of petitio principii, begging the question.

Factually, #3 is simply wrong. Somebody is a potential trading partner if, and only if, you have something of value to him, and vice versa, within a moral (non-coercive) context. I don't need to agree with the sales clerk's subjectivism and collectivism if I'm buying gas at the station, it isn't relevant. On the flip side, I might be entirely philosophically compatible with a particular Objectivist, but we may not currently have anything to trade.

#1 is wrong as well - e.g., taking care of one's children. They are certainly human but they aren't providing a "trade" in exchange for the necessities of life and love and caring; which doesn't mean that they aren't a personal value that one interacts with.

No doubt there are other points to be made.

[jordanz 0]

FYI - The entire book is available for free download. http://objectivistcenter.org/cth--1354-Log...bjectivism.aspx

For Kelley to present his ideas as a part of someone else's philosophy is dishonest and highly disrespectful, both to the philosophy's owner and to readers who want to know what Objectivism is about. Not only does he include his personal ideas in the same book, but he does not seem to differentiate them from Ayn Rand's, or bother to use a disclaimer.

From the LSO Introduction:

Because our subject is the core theses of Objectivism, the content of this book is derived from the existing literature on the philosophy. Although our integration of the material is new, we have avoided offering untried research in this work. Any formulation we present is derived from literature that been subjected to criticism and analysis by knowledgeable scholars. We have, however, endeavored to express the philosophy in our own words. We include quotations from Ayn Rand’s own writings to allow the reader to compare the substance of our presentation with the substance of hers, despite the differences in focus and tone.

emphasis added

[~Sophia~ 0]

2) To discover and exploit opportunities for trade, one must treat other people as potential trading partners.

I will address this one.

Looking for new trade opportunities has it context and purpose. It is not something which we should be bound to pursue in every human interaction. Constant hunt for new values is not a necessity of life. To require such would be asking for a sacrifice of actual values for the sake of potential values. It is proper not to be interested in a trade because, for example, one is busy going about their business (engaging in action to keep an existing value).

We also should not treat everyone as potential trading partners, regardless of context. It maybe proper living in US today (mostly decent people) but very unwise living in a communist Russia.

Both trade and trading partners are not an unconditional values.

I agree that benevolence is a result, a context dependent value judgment and should not be treated as a value to be pursued - doing such would be reversing cause and effect.

BUP is a universal conviction, particular truth about reality - recognizing metaphysical impotence of evil (even if one has to think - somewhere out there or someday such life is possible) so not holding such conviction is a mistake one is making about reality. But one could hold BUP - yet live in such an environment in which making positive assumptions about strangers and thus acting with benevolence as a default would be very unwise.

[bborg 0]

From the LSO Introduction:

Because our subject is the core theses of Objectivism, the content of this book is derived from the existing literature on the philosophy. Although our integration of the material is new, we have avoided offering untried research in this work. Any formulation we present is derived from literature that been subjected to criticism and analysis by knowledgeable scholars. We have, however, endeavored to express the philosophy in our own words. We include quotations from Ayn Rand’s own writings to allow the reader to compare the substance of our presentation with the substance of hers, despite the differences in focus and tone.

emphasis added

Of course it's in his own words, that's not the point. How could it not be in his own words? The problem is that here he says "this book is derived from the existing literature on the philosophy" and yet he includes his own work in that category! He doesn't say, "these are my ideas for consideration, which I think are consistent with Objectivism." He actually presents his ideas as a part of Objectivism, which is what I take serious objection to.

Here's a question. Does Kelley ever say what qualifies one to add to the "Objectivist literature"? Is it just anyone who decides they want to ride Ayn Rand's coattails, or is it whoever Kelley acknowledges in his books? Do they have a committee to decide what gets admitted, or are contradictions OK? My mind boggles at the bureaucratic possibilities.

[jordanz 0]

The problem is that here he says "this book is derived from the existing literature on the philosophy" and yet he includes his own work in that category! He doesn't say, "these are my ideas for consideration, which I think are consistent with Objectivism." He actually presents his ideas as a part of Objectivism, which is what I take serious objection to.

I disagree with this assessment. It's clear to me that he's referring to the canon of books written about Objectivism. If I look at the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I see a number of books with Objectivism in the title that weren't written by Ayn Rand. Kelley also makes clear that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[~Sophia~ 0]

This book should not be called The Logical Structure of Objectivism because it is a structure of something which is not Objectivism (maybe some parts reflect it but not all parts). If you make a change to a philosophy it is dishonest to call it the same.

[bborg 0]

I disagree with this assessment. It's clear to me that he's referring to the canon of books written about Objectivism. If I look at the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I see a number of books with Objectivism in the title that weren't written by Ayn Rand.

It's ok to write about Objectivism. What's not ok is to package deal Objectivism with ideas that Ayn Rand did not hold.

Kelley also makes clear that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Wrong. Also from the Intro:

In addition to these prerequisites, we will frequently have occasion to refer to other major works in the Objectivist literature, including LeonardPeikoff’s survey Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand,5 Nathaniel Branden’s work on the theory of self-esteem6 and David Kelley’s monographs Truth and Toleration7 and Unrugged Individualism.8 We will also touch on certain issues that have arisen in the developing scholarship on Objectivism and related ideas. The reader who is curious to pursue these issues, or other technical aspects of philosophy, will find citations of useful literature in the notes.

My bold.

OPAR is not, according to Dr. Peikoff's own words in his introduction, "official Objectivist doctrine" because it was not written by Ayn Rand. He did say, however that "this book is the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy--as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir."

As long as you keep this qualification in mind, it is perfectly valid to use OPAR as a source on Objectivism. To include the original works of Kelley and Branden under the heading "Objectivism", on the other hand, is totally absurd. It would be absurd even if their ideas were consistent with Objectivism, which they are not.