How might an Objectivist libertarian feel about Tiger Woods?
I was asked by someone if it was now improper to say “Tiger Woods is playing 18 holes”. Ha! Funniest thing I heard last week. AND it opens up a very interesting field of questions.
Has the response to Tiger’s indiscretions been appropriate? He is being punished, hence, he must have done something wrong, correct? To an objectivist libertarian, what is “right” and what is “wrong”? How does one define “good” and “evil”, both moral concepts, when you believe in reason, logic, and that the basic requirement that dealing with the world as it is precludes emotional, moral, non-superstitious judgement?
Let’s start off with a simple, self evident truth: We’re natural creatures. We are hardwired for a system of evolution and natural selection. The overriding imperative of natural selection is that we must pass on our genetic material, reproduce. These are the rules of the game which gave birth to humanity, and we are products of a certain system, with all of the inherent motivators and drives of the other products of said system (other animals).
This has interesting ramifications for someone questing for a logical, non-emotional understanding of “right” and “wrong”. You cannot expect people to behave in a manner which runs counter to their natural programming. It would be like programming a robot to, I dunno, sweep a floor, then getting upset when it doesn’t fix your car. “Right” and “wrong” must be defined with an understanding that these moral actions must also support the overriding, genetic goals we’re saddled with, and which are out of our control to remove.
So what is the internal programing for a human? What is our natural goal of existence? The goal for all humans, like all other animals on Earth, is to reproduce. Thus, our allegiance is to ourselves, primarily, and to our family (other people with our DNA) secondly. This is a natural, scientifically based priority system. Me and mine are all that matter to me because that’s the way nature works and I’m a product of that nature’s system.
This is easy enough for anyone with a standard 7th grade education to understand. Most of us are exposed to the basics of natural selection and evolution in our grade school experiences. But the ideas of “right” and “wrong” are not governed only by our natural survival instincts, a fact clearly seen by the various forms of institutions humanity has developed through out the ages.
Many of our oldest institutions, things such as marriage, religion, etc, have at their foundation an answer to a problem faced by humanity at some point in the past. We may have forgotten the reasons we developed these institutions, mainly because they have been so successful at answering the problems they evolved to address, but that doesn’t give us reason to abandon them. E.G. Like Marx’s calls to do away with marriage, that quack had no clue as to why humans developed the institution of marriage, but it was done for a reason. Natural selection and evolution combine to force species to do only things which further their chance at survival in some way. Wasted effort and resources impact the creature’s abilities to compete, thus, unnecessary evolutionary path ways are eliminated.
Human society is much the same. It has evolved in response to needs and requirements from long ago, and we, as members of the species, have evolved to fit these new institutions as well. Those who were genetically incapable of surviving in civilization have vanished from the human gene pool, and the individuals more adapted to surviving in social environments have thrived. To simply just eliminate portions of that social evolution (as Marx advocated with marriage) would be akin to saying that man no longer needs his liver or his kidneys, and just getting rid of them.
That’s not really an advisable course of action.
The reason we’ve got this thing called civilization, the reason human culture has evolved civilization, is because a certain level of social organization helps everyone survive and pass on their genes with a much higher success rate than independent survival would afford us. Thus, rationally, any action which is intended to remove the benefits of civilization (as a tool designed to help further an individual’s genetic survival) from another individual, as limited by the primary priority of seeing after your own DNA, is wrong.
In fact, it is illogical to discuss “right” and “wrong” in any terms except in those terms which indicate a relationship with a civilized world. Think about it this way: If you’re alone, all by yourself, can you do evil? Isn’t evil determined by your intent towards another when you do it? Same with good. Is it possible to be good without an object which is the beneficiary of your good deed?
We have civilization to help everyone survive more efficiently, thus, murder is wrong because it is the antithesis of civilization. Theft, the same, but even then, we make concessions for theft, such as a person stealing food for his children (because he’s obeying his primary drive of evolution, an instinctive need to feed his young). Rape, in my mind, is equally wrong because it hinders the victim’s chance to enjoy the security benefits of civilization and to make their own choices, but because it is supported by the primary goal of natural creatures (to pass on their genes), some societies have developed a looser standard of what is and isn’t rape. Homosexuality is not wrong, because even though it removes the imperative of reproduction, it doesn’t harm people by denying them the benefits of civilization and it’s nature’s job, not civilization’s, to take them to task for screwing up reproduction.
So on and so forth. To sum it up, “right” and “wrong” are only useful in terms of your interaction with others, and are subordinate to the primary goal of any living organism to pass on their genes. This is clearly demonstrated by the laws which are common to every society. No society is completely free of penalties for murder or theft. Like I said, these activities are the opposite of civilization’s purpose.
How does this all tie in with Tiger? Do I support the actions of the people who dropped him from their ad campaigns, and the media smear machine? In my view of “right” and “wrong”, promiscuity by an unattached individual who remains healthy and is responsible about it is not wrong. It’s a very strong tactic for species survival, and it doesn’t remove the benefit of civilization from another. Adultery, however, is wrong because, again, you’re violating the basic purpose of a civilized agreement, and if you cannot trust an individual to honor one contract, how can you be certain of their intention to honor any contract? I, were I an advertiser, would now be leery of any contractual obligations between that individual and myself. Thus, I can see my way to being ok with the public annihilation of Tiger Wood’s profitability, in a purely business sense.
However, there are some actions, like homosexuality, which I do not think it is ok for society to punish. Now that the business aspect of his punishment has been delivered and dealt with, the media smear machine needs to stop. What Tiger did was not worthy of the invasivness of the current media blitz. Once all the parties affected by contract disputes attached to or associated with his actions have been satisfied, then it ceases to be a matter of society’s concern. Now society is hindering his ability to enjoy the benefits of participation, it’s become, at this moment, a negative in terms of his peaceful survival.
Latest posts by Mike McGowan (Posts)
- From one single father to the next - July 20, 2012
- Why isn’t anyone talking about the man - February 13, 2012
- Questions about the power of precedent - February 8, 2012
- Suffer not the Innocent to find relief - February 2, 2012
- Romney v. Newt: How the GOP and the conservative media killed the TEA Party - January 31, 2012
Print This Post
I don’t think an Objectivist — Rand particularly — would rely on Evolutionary arguments, or advocate the notion that we are hardwired to do X, or maintain that doing what nature made us do is a good reason for doing it. For sure she and they would not approve of the statement that the goal of humans is to reproduce, or that we are like other animals, etc. It seems to me that your piece is about the role of nature and evolution in explaining Tiger’s behavior, and in the creation of social institutions and how these intersect in discussing the ethics of his actions and the actions of companies connected to him. It is not about what an Objectivist would think about the ethics of Tiger’s actions on objectivist grounds.
But what would Steve Ditko think? That’s what I want to know.
I’m not sure how Ditko would think, but I know that Ayn Rand believed in “A is A”. Our instincts and institutions are the products of long periods of trial and error testing on the part of nature, they are things which can be observed and understood, they are reality. Man is a product of the natural system of evolution, with the same limitations as every other creature produced in a similar manner. To believe otherwise wouldn’t be “A is A” thinking.
I don’t understand why Rand would have a problem using scientific reasoning based on known phenomena to lay a basis for something as fundamental as a rational code of conduct.
But her ideas aren’t the only ones which helped shape my “mostly Objectivist libertarian” philosophy. Robert A. Heinlein (who once said that, compared to him, Rand was a bloody socialist) also influenced my beliefs with his observations on theories of morals. Rand said “A is A”, Heinlein said “Man is an natural animal and his morals must reflect that”, I’ve sort of taken it from there, combining parts of social contract theory and natural law theory into my own basis for judging events and actions.
There is a reason for everything which exists. We may not have the best answer to every event, but we should always try to examine the causes when engaged in any serious consideration of the effects. Our instincts and our social institutions play a very important role in determining how we act and respond to the actions of others.
Mike, I don’t think it matters all that much for the points of your post. It might matter to people interested in Rand’s philosophy and those who would argue that the term “Objectivisim” specifically applies to her philosophy and not to Heinlein’s, or libertarianism. As for why Rand or objectivists would object to the view that the purpose of human life is to reproduce — which is certainly the view of evolutionists when discussing the level of the gene, and has often been said to be the prime purpose of most organisms — explaining that and answering the other questions about Rand that you raise would take a long time. I don’t know if anyone is interested in reading it. I’m not all that interested in writing it. I don’t think Rand was anti-science or against empirical evidence, but if science were to provide lots of evidence that evolution has made humans into fundamentally altruistic beings, I don’t see how that would possibly be embraced by Rand and objectivists and doubt they would then conclude that altruism should be the guiding moral principle for human beings and their institutions. Explaining why this is so … who has the energy for that? Rand herself in her books, I guess, or her living self-appointed representatives on various sites, if anyone cares.
Fortunately for us, nature immediately selects against creatures that display purely altruistic tendencies. Even ants and bees hang their hive’s hopes on one individual which does not sacrifice. The queen is the hive, and the queen is an individual.
But I was merely trying to explain my reasoning behind why I think that Tiger’s problems are just that, *Tiger’s* problems. None of us were affected by his actions in any way, and the continued focus on his private life by the public is, in my opinion, harmful to him and his family.
Mike McGowan: “Fortunately for us, nature immediately selects against creatures that display purely altruistic tendencies.”
sorry to interject, but this is an assertion that must be substantiated with citations because it is certainly not obviously true, and arguably evidently false. For instance if you look around at the Homo Sapien population you will find that altruism has indeed evolved and is not being selected against since altruistic people have offspring quite often.
Evolution in human beings at least seeems to have selected for a balance between competitive and cooperative tendencies.
Actually altruism is normal. There is even an equation for it. Hamilton’s Rule.
Short version. The more closely a person is related to you the more altruistic you will be towards them.
Not only that. There are altruistic acts happening all the time. They are called charity. It is forced altruism that is the bane of politics. Under those conditions it is called theft.
wjv,
In my comment I referred to “fundamentally” altruistic and Mike then referred to “purely” altruistic. You leave out his “purely” and assert that his claim is “arguably evidently false” and that there is a balance between competitive and cooperative tendencies. Leaving out the “purely” is important. The “balance” you refer to is not the “purely” he refers to. You’re talking right past him and have turned his deliberately pure, hypothetical into a rejection of any altruism surviving evolution. That is not what his comment claimed.
Since Objectivism was mentioned, and evolution, too, we might note that M. Simon’s point that people are altruistic toward their family members is not exactly what is usually meant by “altruism,” since protecting and helping people who share your self-interest, or share your genes, is, evolutionarily speaking, normally considered a self-interested act (on the level of the gene at least).
wjv, it could and often has been argued that cooperation is in the self-interests of those cooperating. We can cooperate for selfish reasons. People working together to benefit themselves and each other is not altruism. “Cooperation” does not mean “altruism.” Your opposition of cooperation and competition confuses things.
Altruism is an act which benefits the other without benefiting the actor, and even harming the actor. It is hard to argue that humans or many (any?) creatures have evolved to be “purely” altruistic and to benefit others — others not sharing their genes — at their own expense as a general policy. It seems to conflict with the idea of natural selection. Mike’s not exactly making a wild claim here.
As to M. Simon’s point, that people do demonstrate altruism, with charity, I won’t dispute that here. Others might — perhaps they could point to the survival advantage humans gain from having charitable impulses and institutions, thus reducing it to self-interest and making it not altruism; or the selfish motivations for charitable acts (the good feeling it gives people, the social approval they gain — what proportion of huge donors did not name the buildings on campus they paid for after themselves or their family?).
Yes, we can come up with counter examples. Some might argue, however, that even Mother Teresa could be said to have been motivated by a desire to do God’s work, to be seen as a good person by God, to save her soul — to be doing what gave her pleasure and served her interests as she understood them.
I am not making that argument — we could probably find many examples of sacrifice, of genuine altruism (though some would still find self-interest in these acts). I am only saying that you can’t point at every act of charity and say, “Altruism.” Or at a parent protecting his child and say, “Altruism.” You can’t conclude that because people share food with their families, they are altruistic.
Anyway, Mike’s post was not about altruism. I only brought it up as an example because I thought he wasn’t using “Objectivist” precsely. I was not making a claim one way or another about how altruistic humans are or how evolution has made us altruistic or not. I was simply noting that were the latest scientific research to show X about altruism, were that to conflict with a central premise of Objectivism, I think many Objectivists would stick with their central premise. My point was narrow and had to do with what role science/evidence plays in that particular philosophy and how important the central premises are to it.
Any discussion of Rand and Objectivism is bound to be simplified and inadequate in the space devoted here, which is why I also noted that I didn’t think Rand was necessarily anti-science. The only reason for my comment in the first place was my thought that “Objectivism” didn’t belong as a subject of the post and that using evolutionary and scientific arguments to argue that people should do X was not consistent with Objectivist philosophy as I understand it.
Thanks for the defense Scott! I appreciate it! Interestingly enough, I have a post scheduled to appear in a few minutes that I wrote earlier this afternoon which hit many of the same points and ideas.
Great minds thinking alike.
I’m happy that people are reading my posts. Thanks for all the interesting comments everyone! The readers make this stuff fun.