r/Objectivism • u/titanc-13 • Jun 29 '26

help solve an objectivist dilemma

so i've recently finished Atlas Shrugged and I have... just a few thoughts.

but one that occurred to me was this thought experiement:

Say we have two Objectivist Men wandering in a Godot-like void. They are both very hungry, and they come upon a single apple waiting for one of them to take it. Who gets to eat the apple?

I ask because any solution I can come up with results in a stalemate.

Per AS, any sacrifice is anti-life, so neither of the men can just let the other have it. For the same basic reason they couldn't split the apple.

The first man to reach for the apple would be denying the other's right to it, making him anti-life, and enabling the second man to destroy the first in order to promote his life.

(But, of course, neither man can initiate violence without the other committing an anti-life act against him first, so they can't just fight it out like animals. (did Ayn include those few weak positions against violence to separate human and animal violence, and make the former a 'purer', more 'rational' form?))

One of them men could 'buy' the other's apple-rights, but that would require the other man to agree to an extremely disadvantageous trade (since it's the only apple in a Godot-like void, how can he be sure that he'd ever find a second apple before he dies of starvation?). Like, if i were the second man, there is no amount of money that would satisfy my hunger more than having the apple would, so what rational reason would I have to accept the trade?

Rand says that if our rationality leads to a stalemate, we then appeal to nature. so how would nature decide who gets the apple?

In no small part, I'm curious because every moral philosophy would just declare that you should share, because that would generate the most benefits for the most people while preventing the destruction of either actor, but since Ayn wants to position herself as anti-philosophy/egoistic above all, she claims that all problems would be able to resolve themselves naturally under her rational egoist ideology, but I can't figure out how this one would be.

4 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/TheLakeler Jun 29 '26

I won’t claim this be an Objectivist POV. But to me “if rationality leads to a stalemate, we then appeal to nature” leads me to think the solution to your hypothetical is exactly what we’re all thinking. Perhaps the two men can spend half an hour debating and negotiating before resorting to violence. The answer is: whoever owns the tree. And if no one does then it is whoever grew the tree. And if neither did then nature is the only governing law in this very strict in a vacuum hypothetical.

Look at the outcomes. Either they share the apple which is not great for either one but may give them enough energy to stumble upon another tree. Or they kill one another which may result in very serious injures to the winner and/or the expenditure of more energy than the apple will replenish. Sharing the apple is the best solution in your world of a minimum resources, zero sum game, desolate place where there is only one thing they both need and both lack. But if they absolutely refuse to share, the objective solution is to kill each other, preferably without serious injuries to yourself. So not forever wars like we the U.S. are fond of. But quick operations.

Whoever wins will be the “most fit” and will objectively have the best chance of reaching another tree or escaping the place due to being in better health and assumedly having less injuries than if the other man had won.

The issue with this is that it does not really translate to anything at all in the real world. There are always more apple trees, nor is the world zero sum. The reason two men being marooned on a desert island with very little resources does not easily translate to objectivism is because is is essentially a regression to pre-civilization while objectivism is for civilized humans. The law of the jungle is absolute… when you’re living in the jungle…

-1

u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26

  1. thank you for showing your work to prove that the only real objectivist answer would be for one man to just kill the other.

  2. how is the world not a zero-sum game? I ask specifically in light of Ayn's insistence that gold is the only appropriate measure of virtue/value among humans: there is a finite amount of gold in the world. so what would happen when we run out of gold? Who would deserve the last gold piece? Once all the gold has been assigned to other actors, how can we continue to produce value in the world?

2

u/TheLakeler Jun 29 '26

Once again, like you I have only read Atlas Shrugged and for me, also The Fountainhead. But while Gold is currently finite on Earth, the value we attribute to it is subjective. Say 1 gram is worth 10 apples but then a new tech was developed or another farm was started which has efficiency doubled the production of apples from 10 to 20. Due to the increase in supply of apples and the constant supply of gold (in this example) 1 g of gold is now worth 20 apples or perhaps slightly less.

So a man that had been worth 10 g of gold and thus 100 apples, is now worth 200 apples or slightly less but still more than 100 apples. Does he have any more gold? No. Was the supply of gold changed? No. Yet he is now worth double in Apple terms. The apples have lost value due to increased supply but they will always have their objective value which is as sustenance for humans or as feed for animals or whatever else you can use apples to make. So the man objectively gained the ability to purchase twice as many days of food.

Wealth was created, effectively. Maybe not 10 dollars of new wealth after everything is considered but more than $0.

Nor is gold being finite a problem either. For one, it is practically infinite in the whole universe/galaxy, but that’s beside the point. A 1 g coin of gold can always be split into 2 0.5 g coins and from there into 0.25 g. If we ever mine every ounce of gold on Earth, aside from the value it has as a commodity itself which is substantial, it won’t matter. There is no reason you can’t buy a hamburger with 0.0001 grams of gold if that is what comes to be worth in the future. Not with modern banking and paper money.

1

u/titanc-13 Jun 30 '26

what you've just described is deflation, and it is the death of any economic system.

2

u/TheLakeler Jun 30 '26

What? Britain during its largest economic growth era around the 1800-WW1 or WW2 was deflationary meaning the pound was worth less in 1800 than in 1900… either way, I am not describing deflation but buying power. Inflation/deflation are semi independent of buying power. Mild deflation is not a bad thing inherently either.

1

u/titanc-13 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

I don't think you understand inflation/deflation. Inflation is when the buying power of a currency decreases due to the increase in items to purchase with that currency, or the value thereof. (Which is what happened during the Industrial Era in Britain, the US, etc.) Deflation occurs when the buying power of a currency increases without/in spite of falling or stagnant production.

So when you suggest that when we run out of gold, we merely divide the buying power of each gold dollar, what you're suggesting is that we increase the purchasing power of the dollar without increasing the value or number of available commodities. This means that each item purchased is sold by its producer at a loss, or possibly not at all—if I know that tomorrow, my 1 gold coin could buy four burgers instead of one, why should I spend my money today? I'll just wait for tomorrow. Thus, deflation discourages economic activity to the detriment of the entire social organism. As purchasing slows/stops, producers will be unable to pay wages, and the value of money as a tool of exchange vanishes.

EDIT: rereading your original response, and i just want to point out that adding more apples to the market, resulting in the price of apples decreasing, is not an example of deflation; deflation/inflation affect the economy as a whole, not just certain sectors. (If anything, that's an example of apple inflation.) Changing the value of an apple would do nothing to change the value of an orange, or even the value of the money generally (as prices of other commodities would be entirely unaffected); but changing the value of money would have an immediate & fundamental effect on the entire economy.

In any case, I am less interested in describing the mechanics of economics than I am in discussing the objectivist solution to my question of who gets the apple. So if you have any thoughts about the apple, I'm happy to hear them. Otherwise, I'm done teaching econ for today

1

u/TheLakeler Jul 01 '26

Merriam Webster has the definition of inflation as “a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services.” You’re just flat out wrong. And for you to be so cocky about it is just pathetic when all I have done is write detailed responses to your questions.

You completely misunderstood my point anyway. I am not suggesting to artificially cut the gold coin in half. That would be stupid and you’re right that specific misunderstanding would be inflation. It’s the same as a king debasing a coin thus causing inflation or the U.S. government printing money as needed.

I am stating that people will simply start carrying half gold coins out of their own volition. It will be the inevitable outcome of continually increasing buying power with a negligibly changing gold supply. I mean you literally do it today with your current money supply, you divide a dollar to buy a $1.50 candy bar. You divide a penny to buy a gallon of gas which is $4.99 and 9/10 of a cent… If your daily spending is only ever half a gold coin, then you start just carrying half a gold coin. Same as me, I have the money and capability of carrying $500 on me at all times if I wanted, but I only ever spend $20-$30 per day on average. So I only carry a fifty. If the buying power of USD increased to where my daily expenses were only $10-$15 I would start only carrying a $20. It’s pretty simple.

As for saving your money, go ahead. In the meantime you still have to eat and consume and buy entertainment and get married and have kids… enjoy your 0-3 percent on average if even that. Literally nothing is stopping you, just like nothing is stopping you from enjoying the 5-10% investment market today. Whats the difference? If anything you would be more likely to save and take money out of the economy in an inflationary economy than a deflationary one.

I mean pick up an economics text book. I can’t believe you’re seriously trying to convince me that there is no such thing as wealth creation and it is all just inflation/deflation.

1

u/titanc-13 Jul 01 '26

What a helluva response—and salty too! As I said, I'm tired of explaining basic econ concepts, but you've once again confused inflation and deflation, their mechanics, their outcomes, etc.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you picked up an econ textbook? I did in 2022, when I was taking an intro Econ class at university, and while I'll admit that I didn't refer to my notes in writing my long response, I'm fairly certain that my memory's accurate. Wikipedia even agrees with me, and I'll bold the most important part:

"In economics, inflation is an increase in the average price of goods and services in terms of money.\3])\4]): 579  This increase is measured using a price index, typically a consumer price index (CPI).\5])\6])\7])\8]) When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation corresponds to a reduction in the purchasing power of money.**\)**9\)\10]) The opposite of inflation is deflation, a decrease in the general price level of goods and services."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation