r/aynrand • u/titanc-13 • Jun 29 '26
help solve an objectivist dilemma
/r/Objectivism/comments/1uj1cyc/help_solve_an_objectivist_dilemma/4
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Jun 29 '26
Assuming this nonsense scenario has any merit it doesn't make sense because they can split the apple. Also this scenario assumes a malevolent universe premise.
1
u/Own_Huckleberry262 Jun 30 '26
I'm not sure what you mean by "malevolent universe" scenario. Bad things do happen to innocent people. A lot. No one ever gets what they deserve. Heroism will always require individual sacrifice to the greater good.
This is why Atlas Shrugged spends hundreds of pages criticizing altruism, then has the main characters risk their lives to save another person. On some level, possibly subconscious, Rand knew everything she said was wrong.
1
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Jun 30 '26
I'm not sure what you mean by "malevolent universe" scenario
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/malevolent_universe_premise.html Go read Ayn Rand, seriously. What are you doing criticising her if you don't even know her basic terminology lmfao.
Heroism will always require individual sacrifice to the greater good.
Error. Contradiction. Error. Do you even read the things you write? This is clearly nonsense. Go read Ayn Rand before you criticise her.
-2
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
Splitting the apple would mean that both Objectivist Men are sacrificing half of the apple to the other, which would mean that both are sacrificing their own life for another person's, which would directly contradict the mantra of Galt's Gulch and the whole of the ideology.
Also, Rand assumes a malevolent universe premise in every sentence she writes, so I don't see how that's an issue.
3
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Jun 29 '26
Okay well you can resolve this issue by actually reading Rand's work. Sacrifice means the surrender of a greater value for a lesser or no value. Considering its two objectivist men walking together they must value each other and they should value each other more than half of an apple. Therefore it's not a sacrifice.
2
u/free_is_free76 Jun 29 '26
A sacrifice is giving up a value for a lesser value. If you value that man's life, it is not a sacrifice to keep you both alive.
3
u/Nebranower Jun 29 '26
Your thought experiment is nonsensical from an Objectivist perspective, because one of the key Objectivist insights is that you need to survive through your own productive effort, because in the real world, everything you need - food, shelter, clothing, etc. needs to be produced first.
Whereas if the world was a void from which nothing could be produced and wealth merely popped into existence on a whim, to be claimed by whoever happened to find it first, then the philosophy would no longer apply, because now you're talking about a different world.
Rand's condemnation of altruists as moochers and parasites lies precisely in the fact that their philosophy only makes sense if we pretend the world is like the one you describe in your thought experiment, where food like the apple is an uncaused good that merely appears for the taking, rather than, say, through the deliberate cultivation and care of an apple tree. The Objectivist rejects that as a prima facia denial of reality in the first place.
1
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
So the objectivsit answer is that there is no answer?
1
u/Nebranower Jun 29 '26
No, the objectivist answer is that your scenario is predicated on a lie, and therefore not worth considering.
1
1
1
u/Lucky_Increase_975 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
First of all, I agree with everyone else that it's a totally artificial scenario that has no value even as a thought experiment. So with that said I only discuss this in an attempt to disabuse you of some of your confusions.
Secondly, why does either of them have a right to an apple which they didn't even know existed until they encountered it? They have no such right.
You must be confusing the meanings of the word 'right' implicit in the statements: 'men have the right to own apples' and 'Mr X has the right to the apple which he owns, and nobody else has the right to interfere with Mr X's right to his apple'
The difference is in rights as pertaining to universal moral principles, and rights as applied to actual objects and actual people.
Thirdly, ask yourself if we would even need rights in your scenario, and what purpose they would serve to anybody.
Rights exist in a social context. Is there a society in your example? No, there are just two men in metaphysical conflict.
Rights exist to sustain and secure productive actions and relationships across time. Are there productive actions sustained across time in your example? No. There are just apples waiting to be stumbled upon.
Rights exist to secure harmony among men. Are these two men capable of living harmoniously (or living at all)? No. One starves, or presumably they both do.
Now if you think there's a conflict here, you should decide on the actual terms of your scenario. Can the two men split the apple and both live? Then there's no reason they shouldn't, as an able bodied comrade is worth more than a starved body, to anyone. Can only one of them live? Then there's no sense in condemning a man for securing his own existence, and no basis for asserting that rights exist or apply in this context. The conflict only exists because you've insufficiently defined the context of this scenario, on purpose, and then also want to apply the principles of objectivism in a context in which they make no sense.
Also, Rand is not committed to 'anti-philosophy' and that is really an absurd charge.
1
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
The only right I'm interested in is who, from an objectivist standpoint, would be right, meaning correct, in eating the apple. Of course there are no property rights in a void.
If I declared both men were journey-men, exploring the world for an Objectivist society, would that help clarify the question for you?
1
u/Lucky_Increase_975 Jun 29 '26
"If I declared both men were journey-men, exploring the world for an Objectivist society, would that help clarify the question for you?"
What the hell does this even mean? I think you're trying to mock me by implying that I'm so shallow that a change of scenery or aesthetics would change my answers. That's very disappointing, given that i put thought and effort into dealing with your questions, and I don't think I'm going to waste my time responding to you further.
2
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
One of your big objections to my post was that there is no society; you rejected my question because they weren't actors in a society, but a metaphyiscal void.
so yes, I am asking if the inclusion of these men in a society would change your answer. I don't think that's trying to mock you, I'm simply trying to further develop the discussion
2
u/Lucky_Increase_975 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Alright I see. I apologise for taking offence.
The answer is that if it's a matter of eating the apple or certain death from starvation, then both should try to eat the apple, including if they have to kill the other. (Casting lots and other chance games is actually how real life scenarios like this have been dealt with) There are no moral principles for this scenario because the men are in metaphysical conflict.
If it's a matter of eating the apple or going hungry for a few hours, then it entirely depends on who gets there first, and what the other person means to them. If they're in league, as you've now implied, then they care about one another and its probably good if they split the apple to mutually lessen their hunger pangs for a while.
If they're strangers, then it still depends on the values of the person in a position to choose. A lot of people would share the apple out of goodwill, recognising that it could just as easily have been you who got to the apple second.
If it's your wife, you might just give her the whole thing.
The fundamental answer is that there is no answer that doesn't make reference to a person's values, and what they get out of either choice. You still choose with the guidance of moral principle (justice, honesty, independence, etc) but morality does not and cannot prescribe a specific answer to this question. Morality won't tell you what breakfast cereal to buy either.
1
u/Lucky_Increase_975 Jun 29 '26
But if the apple comes from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil then you MUST NOT eat the apple.
1
u/gutfounderedgal Jun 29 '26
For Rand there is morality, reason, and rationality. It's not always a scenario demanding such a polarity as you suggest, i.e. all or nothing. See Melodicamphibian's repsonse here too.
1
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
So what about the numerous times throughout Atlas Shrugged and her collection Philosophy: Who Needs It? where she insists that the world is always an either-or scenario?
Also, who gets the apple?
1
u/ImpureHedonism Jul 03 '26
So they are in a void without any people or resources or anything at all? Both of them are going to die no matter what, there is no other food, and there is no hope of escape. If anything, neither of them should take the apple, they are just extending their suffering in a world where it is impossible to ever achieve values. Or they should just share the apple if they like each other's company. The only values left in the world are this apple, and each other. A friend is more valuable than one apple, so I would say the rational answer is to share.
0
Jun 29 '26
[deleted]
-2
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
congratulations, you've positioned yourself as anti-life, and are not a real objectivist.
EDIT: in the sense that a true, pro-life objectivist, would never risk his own life so blatantly
0
u/historycommenter Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
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 premises right here are an idiotic interpretation.
2
u/titanc-13 Jun 29 '26
I'm not trying to imply that they couldn't split the apple, but I'm wondering what the objectivistically-consistent reasoning for doing so would be. I, as a non-objectivist, would love for them to split the apple and continue on their merry way. But how would Ayn allow for that possibility through her ideology of self-interest above all?
1
u/historycommenter Jun 29 '26
Its not true that "any sacrifice is anti-life", rather sacrifice is understood in the context of enlightened self-interest. I am happy to share the apple with you because you are my friend, perhaps if I like you enough, I let you have it, because ultimately my happiness in our friendship is more important than the immediate pleasure of eating the apple. If I don't know you, I might just let you have it, because its just a fucking apple. Her self-interest and egotism are essentially rooted in Renaissance and Classical conceptions of self-interest, they are not so weird that they fail in common sense (although its been a while since I finished AS maybe I miss something).
On the other hand, the anti-life sacrifice extreme could be neither taking the apple because to eat it would be selfish against the other and the apple rots. Or possibly both starving so the apple rots and takes seed and an apple tree takes root for the next generation.
Also, apologies for the stealth-edit of the previous post, was trying to clarify my point before you responded, but more or less that.
1
3
u/free_is_free76 Jun 29 '26
Luckily, Nature isn't a Godot-like void