Peikoff - The Good - The Individual As The Proper Beneficiary Of His Own Moral Action Flashcards
(100 cards)
Now let us turn to the last of the 3 basic ethical questions, the question of the PROPER BENEFICIARY.
The answer involves a distinction between …
The STANDARD of ethics and the PURPOSE of ethics.
An ethical standard, writes AR, means:
An ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a CONCRETE, SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
“That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man.
==> The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose — the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being — belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.
Each individual must choose his values and actions by the standard of man’s life — in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining and enjoying his own life.
Thus Objectivism advocates …
EGOISM — The pursuit of self-interest — the policy of selfishness.
The concept of “egoism” identifies merely ONE aspect of an ethical code:
It tells us not what acts a man should take, but WHO SHOULD PROFIT FROM THEM.
Egoism states that each man’s primary moral obligation is to …
Achieve his own welfare, well-being, or self-interest (these terms are synonyms here).
Egoism states that each man should be …
“Concerned with his own interests”.
He should be “selfish” in the sense of being the BENEFICIARY of his own moral actions.
Taken by itself, this principle offers NO PRACTICAL GUIDANCE.
It does not specify values or virtues:
It does NOT define “interests” or “self-interest” — neither in terms of “life”, “power”, “pleasure”, nor of anything else.
==> It simply states: WHATEVER man’s proper self-interest consists of, that is what each individual should seek to achieve.
The alternative is the view that man’s primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the price of subordinating or denying his own welfare.
In this view, …
The essence of morality is UNSELFISHNESS, which involves some form of SELF-SACRIFICE.
Though LP has often implied the Objectivist position on the present question, it is only at this point that I am able to address the issue explicitly:
The reason is that egoism, like every other principle, requires a process of validation — and until now, the context needed to prove (and properly interpret) egoism has not been established.
In the Objectivist view, the validation of egoism consists in showing that …
IT IS A COROLLARY OF MAN’S LIFE AS THE MORAL STANDARD.
“Only the alternative of life vs death”, I said earlier, “creates the context for value-oriented action” and “only self-preservation”, I said, “can be an ultimate goal”.
Now I need merely add the emphasis required to bring out the full meaning of these formulations:
The alternative with which reality confronts a living organism is ITS OWN LIFE OR DEATH.
The goal is SELF-preservation.
Leaving aside reproduction, to which every organism owes its existence, this is the goal of …
ALL AUTOMATIC BIOLOGICAL processes and actions.
==> When a plant turns it leaves to reach the sunlight, when an animal digests food or regulates its internal temperature or turns at a sudden sound to discover the source, the organism is pursuing the values ITS SURVIVAL DEMANDS.
==> As a living entity, each NECESSARILY ACTS FOR ITS OWN SAKE — EACH IS THE BENEFICIARY OF ITS OWN ACTIONS.
Plants and animals may not, however, be described as “egoistic”.
The term …
“Self-sustaining” covers the facts of their kind of behavior.
Concepts such as “egoistic”, along with its synonyms and antonyms (selfish, altruistic, selfless), are …
MORAL terms.
==> They apply only to an entity with the power of choice.
==> They designate a mode of functioning that has been adopted in the face of an alternative.
==> Plants and animals do NOT have to decide WHO is to be the beneficiary of their actions.
***MAN DOES HAVE TO DECIDE IT.
In the case of man, self-sustaining behavior is …
NOT PRE-PROGRAMMED.
==> Even though man’s bodily processes are guided automatically by the value of life, we saw earlier, he must decide as a CONSCIOUS ENTITY to accept LIFE as his moral standard.
A similar point applies in the present issue.
Even though man’s bodily processes aim automatically at …
Self-preservation, he must decide as a conscious entity to accept this end as his MORAL purpose.
==> Because his consciousness is volitional, man must CHOOSE to accept the ESSENCE OF LIFE.
==> He must CHOOSE to make self-sustenance into a fundamental rule of his voluntary behavior.
==> The man who makes this choice is an “egoist”.
“Egoistic”, in the Objectivist view, means …
Self-sustaining by an act of choice and as a matter of principle.
The wider principle demanding such egoism is the fact that survival requires an …
ALL-ENCOMPASSING COURSE OF ACTION.
A man’s life cannot be preserved, not in the long-range sense, if he views the task as …
A sideline serving some other kind of goal.
If an action is not for his life, then, as we have seen, it is …
AGAINST his life — it is self-inflicted damage, which, uncorrected, is PROGRESSIVE.
==> This principle applies w/o restriction, to every aspect of a man’s actions.
==> It is particularly obvious, however, when the aspect is not some complex means or lesser ends, but the ruling goal of a man’s existence.
==> To accept anything other than one’s own life in THIS kind of issue — to incorporate into one’s ultimate purpose any variant or tinge of self-denial — is to DECLARE WAR ON LIFE AT THE ROOT.
Life requires that man gain values, not lose them.
It requires …
Assertive action, achievement, success, NOT abnegation, renunciation, surrender.
==> It requires SELF-TENDING — the exact opposite of SACRIFICE.
A sacrifice is the surrender of a value for the sake of a lesser value or of a nonvalue.
A rational man, however, chooses his values and their hierarchical ranking not by whim, but …
By a process of COGNITION.
==> To tell such a man to surrender his values is to tell him:
==> “Surrender your judgement, contradict your knowledge, SACRIFICE YOUR MIND.”
***This is something a man dare not sacrifice.
The process of thought requires a man to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor, regardless of any effects such action may have on the consciousness of others.
He must …
Follow the evidence whether others agree with his conclusions or not, whether their disagreement is honest or not, whether his conclusions accord with their wishes or not, whether his conclusions make them happy or not.
==> Since thought is an attribute of the individual, each man must be SOVEREIGN in regard to the function and the product of his own brain.
==> THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF MORALITY DEMANDS THAT A MAN “PLACE OTHERS ABOVE SELF”.
There is no dichotomy between epistemology and ethics — which means, in this issue, …
Between the PROCESS OF COGNITION AND ITS BENEFICIARY.
==> A man cannot offer unswerving allegiance to logic, if he holds that his moral duty is to surrender his conclusions in order to satisfy unchosen obligations to others.