Can you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?BobS wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 1:50 pmI don't believe that's true. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, during which time he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he considered his best work. Although I haven't read it myself, and know of it only through secondary sources, my understanding is that it discusses self-interest and its relationship to morality.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:53 am Moral judgement or an ethical life, a term which I prefer, is not what Smith had in mind. His interest is in economics and business.
The Wealth of Nations is his more famous work, and I haven't read that one either, but my understanding is that, while it's subject is different, it's not inconsistent with the views expressed in Smith's earlier work.
How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
I didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.
My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.
Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility. But if one acknowledges that we humans are a social species, the friction between ethical behaviour and self-interest becomes more obvious, doesn't it?BobS wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pmAmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.
"Who cares, wins"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Did anyone explain why they'd think they'd be incompatible?AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?BobS wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 1:50 pmI don't believe that's true. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, during which time he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he considered his best work. Although I haven't read it myself, and know of it only through secondary sources, my understanding is that it discusses self-interest and its relationship to morality.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 9:53 am Moral judgement or an ethical life, a term which I prefer, is not what Smith had in mind. His interest is in economics and business.
The Wealth of Nations is his more famous work, and I haven't read that one either, but my understanding is that, while it's subject is different, it's not inconsistent with the views expressed in Smith's earlier work.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
I doubt that an "(American) Individualist," whatever that is, would have such difficulty.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
Perhaps one inclined to caricature different nationalities might conjecture otherwise, but that raises an entirely different category of ethics.
It's obvious even without the condition. But it's not relevant to what I said earlier. Mere friction and incompatibility are two different things.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm But if one acknowledges that we humans are a social species, the friction between ethical behaviour and self-interest becomes more obvious, doesn't it?
Since a mis-statement regarding Adam Smith is what got me into this thread, you might consider going back and reading him, or at least about him. Although The Wealth of Nations is often (incorrectly) cited as urging unadulterated self-interest, Smith explicitly argued that social concerns had to be considered.
But then, he wasn't an American. So you got me there.
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Self interest is maximizing profit to oneself. That is the central point of capitalism, that the combination would promote prosperity and would somehow trickle down to the masses. It has been amply demonstrated that this is not true. The balance that societies then make is between regulating unbridled self interested capitalism with taxation and other regulations such as fair wages, environmental protection, welfare and public works. That is the constant battle in American politics. There is no ethics in capitalism, there is no need for it unless forced to comply. Amazon paid 0 taxes. Enough said.BobS wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pmI didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.
My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.
Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
You misunderstood what Adam Smith said, and I corrected you. My reward is to be subjected to a political rant on a subject in which I have no interest.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 7:29 amSelf interest is maximizing profit to oneself. That is the central point of capitalism, that the combination would promote prosperity and would somehow trickle down to the masses. It has been amply demonstrated that this is not true. The balance that societies then make is between regulating unbridled self interested capitalism with taxation and other regulations such as fair wages, environmental protection, welfare and public works. That is the constant battle in American politics. There is no ethics in capitalism, there is no need for it unless forced to comply. Amazon paid 0 taxes. Enough said.BobS wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pmI didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.
My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.
Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
I agree that you've said enough.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
"Individualism" covers a broad area, goes beyond Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and isn't limited to Americans. My understanding is that, like most beliefs, it has its own emphasis, but I've never heard of it as arguing for self-interest to the exclusion of all else. (And although I wish that what you brand American Libertarians would simply go away, I've never heard any of them make that argument either.) Claiming the contrary might be useful to someone who has an underlying political agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very clearly a caricature.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 11:13 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
I am baffled that you thought that such a silly caricature strengthened your hand in claiming whatever the heck you were claiming in response to my comment that self-interest and ethics obviously had to accommodate each other (the word I used was "balance").
That (virtually?) everyone has self interest is a given. That many such people hope and try to be ethical also is a given. Maybe you think that it's possible to devise an ethical system that doesn't take account of other people, but that's a rather strange one to my mind. Ethics generally involves self-interested people taking other people into account, all without their being confused by a supposed incompatibility.
I find the idea that self-interest and ethics are "incompatible" incoherent.
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Hitler’s self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.BobS wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 2:18 pm"Individualism" covers a broad area, goes beyond Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and isn't limited to Americans. My understanding is that, like most beliefs, it has its own emphasis, but I've never heard of it as arguing for self-interest to the exclusion of all else. (And although I wish that what you brand American Libertarians would simply go away, I've never heard any of them make that argument either.) Claiming the contrary might be useful to someone who has an underlying political agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very clearly a caricature.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 11:13 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
I am baffled that you thought that such a silly caricature strengthened your hand in claiming whatever the heck you were claiming in response to my comment that self-interest and ethics obviously had to accommodate each other (the word I used was "balance").
That (virtually?) everyone has self interest is a given. That many such people hope and try to be ethical also is a given. Maybe you think that it's possible to devise an ethical system that doesn't take account of other people, but that's a rather strange one to my mind. Ethics generally involves self-interested people taking other people into account, all without their being confused by a supposed incompatibility.
I find the idea that self-interest and ethics are "incompatible" incoherent.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Oh, God. Now we've got Hitler in the discussion. What a surprise, this being the Internet.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 5:31 pmHitler's self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.
I guess your first message wasn't "enough said" after all. So let's deal with your question, childish as it is.
Your language is unclear. Your first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?
Your second sentence, asking “how it balanced with ethics,” thus contradicts the first sentence. Further, your reference to "ethics" in a void is unclear. Whose ethics? Yours? Who made you the boss of him? Maybe Hitler did have some sort of perverse sense of ethics. For example, assume that, instead of having no ethics, he thought that it was an ethical duty to kill certain categories of people if, in his opinion, it promoted the interests of the German Volk. Well, I hate to tell you, in that case his self-interest (striving for political popularity by appealing to like-minded Pan Germanists) would be compatible with his ethics.
This doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider him an unethical bastard who should have been squashed like a bug. It just means that the nutty idea that self-interest and ethics (as a general concept) are incompatible doesn't begin to fly. Of course it's true that some people act -- and not just out of self-interest -- in ways that are contrary to other people’s ethics. Maybe that's not nice, but from a philosophical standpoint, so what?
Pick any two activities and ask whether they are incompatible. If we then find a person who doesn't engage in one of those activities, that's not proof of their incompatibility. If you think otherwise, then I see no possibility of anyone's reasoning with you.
Let me illustrate with a homey example.
I have self interest. For example, I need to eat in order to live. But one of my ethical beliefs is that it's wrong to rob people. I therefore don't rob people in order to eat. My self-interest and ethics therefore are consistent and in balance. If I were to violate my ethics by robbing someone after all, that wouldn't mean that my self-interest and ethics were incompatible. It would simply mean that I hadn't properly balanced my self-interest and my ethics, and therefore had behaved unethically by my own lights (or that I in fact didn't have the ethical belief that I claimed I had).
On the other hand, an example of my self-interest and ethics being incompatible would be where my ethics held that I shouldn't eat anything at all, because it's wrong to kill other living things for any reason.
I assume that you claim that you're an ethical person, or that you at least try to be. And you can't dispute that you are self-interested in certain respects, such as eating in order to stay alive. Are you really going to tell me that your self-interest and your ethics are incompatible?
This has been absurdly simple. I hope I have broken it down enough so that you finally understand it. If you don't, then I can't help you.
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
You have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.BobS wrote: ↑July 1st, 2021, 12:57 amOh, God. Now we've got Hitler in the discussion. What a surprise, this being the Internet.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 5:31 pmHitler's self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.
I guess your first message wasn't "enough said" after all. So let's deal with your question, childish as it is.
Your language is unclear. Your first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?
Your second sentence, asking “how it balanced with ethics,” thus contradicts the first sentence. Further, your reference to "ethics" in a void is unclear. Whose ethics? Yours? Who made you the boss of him? Maybe Hitler did have some sort of perverse sense of ethics. For example, assume that, instead of having no ethics, he thought that it was an ethical duty to kill certain categories of people if, in his opinion, it promoted the interests of the German Volk. Well, I hate to tell you, in that case his self-interest (striving for political popularity by appealing to like-minded Pan Germanists) would be compatible with his ethics.
This doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider him an unethical bastard who should have been squashed like a bug. It just means that the nutty idea that self-interest and ethics (as a general concept) are incompatible doesn't begin to fly. Of course it's true that some people act -- and not just out of self-interest -- in ways that are contrary to other people’s ethics. Maybe that's not nice, but from a philosophical standpoint, so what?
Pick any two activities and ask whether they are incompatible. If we then find a person who doesn't engage in one of those activities, that's not proof of their incompatibility. If you think otherwise, then I see no possibility of anyone's reasoning with you.
Let me illustrate with a homey example.
I have self interest. For example, I need to eat in order to live. But one of my ethical beliefs is that it's wrong to rob people. I therefore don't rob people in order to eat. My self-interest and ethics therefore are consistent and in balance. If I were to violate my ethics by robbing someone after all, that wouldn't mean that my self-interest and ethics were incompatible. It would simply mean that I hadn't properly balanced my self-interest and my ethics, and therefore had behaved unethically by my own lights (or that I in fact didn't have the ethical belief that I claimed I had).
On the other hand, an example of my self-interest and ethics being incompatible would be where my ethics held that I shouldn't eat anything at all, because it's wrong to kill other living things for any reason.
I assume that you claim that you're an ethical person, or that you at least try to be. And you can't dispute that you are self-interested in certain respects, such as eating in order to stay alive. Are you really going to tell me that your self-interest and your ethics are incompatible?
This has been absurdly simple. I hope I have broken it down enough so that you finally understand it. If you don't, then I can't help you.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
Advice for the future: it's not an effective debating technique to quote your opponent and then immediately lie about what he just said.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 1st, 2021, 8:30 amYou have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.
All I’ve done is point out that ethics are subjective. How you managed never to have encountered such a concept before is anyone's guess.
Yet your concept of ethics is very similar, the only difference being that you think that subjectivity comes from a single person: you. Ethics are simply what you believe, rendering your ethical judgments supreme above all others.
Much the same as what Torquemada and company thought of their judgments.
We even now know two over-arching features of your ethical code.
1. Anyone who disagrees must be sympathetic to Hitler.
2. It is entirely incompatible with anyone's self-interest.
Thus spake AmericanKestrel: Anyone who acts to further his own interests in any respect acts unethically.
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
I think if you set aside your snark and silliness you will be better able to have a conversation.BobS wrote: ↑July 1st, 2021, 12:03 pmAdvice for the future: it's not an effective debating technique to quote your opponent and then immediately lie about what he just said.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 1st, 2021, 8:30 amYou have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.
All I’ve done is point out that ethics are subjective. How you managed never to have encountered such a concept before is anyone's guess.
Yet your concept of ethics is very similar, the only difference being that you think that subjectivity comes from a single person: you. Ethics are simply what you believe, rendering your ethical judgments supreme above all others.
Much the same as what Torquemada and company thought of their judgments.
We even now know two over-arching features of your ethical code.
1. Anyone who disagrees must be sympathetic to Hitler.
2. It is entirely incompatible with anyone's self-interest.
Thus spake AmericanKestrel: Anyone who acts to further his own interests in any respect acts unethically.
Ultimately ethics is subjective, it is innate. When laws are made to correct social injustice and inequality, the impetus comes from that same innate sense of ethics collectively within the community. To act otherwise is self interest.
Self-interest is also subjective. Yes you may rob a piece of bread because you are starving and pennyless. But the shopkeeper may forgives you and add cheese to it because you are starving and pennyless. He chooses to act against his self interest. That kind of altruism comes from his sense of ethics.
While self interest is a basic instinct for survival ethics is not about survival. That is why they are incompatible. That is why we have heroes like a mother who would throw herself in front of a train to save her child or a man who jumps into the currents to save a someone and drowns in the effort.
A bit sad that all this needs to be explained to you.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?
We haven't been having a "conversation" in any meaningful sense of the term. You haven't been trying to have one.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 1st, 2021, 2:15 pmI think if you set aside your snark and silliness you will be better able to have a conversation.
I entered this thread merely to point out that you had obviously mischaracterized what Adam Smith had said. That set you off on a boring, unrelated political rant, which you concluded by stating that it was all that needed to be said.
You then had second thoughts. I had had the temerity to point out your ignorance regarding Adam Smith. Well, you now handled that one by dropping the Hitler bomb, of all things.
Snark was an entirely appropriate response to such a childishness maneuver by someone who I assume is an adult.
Bear in mind that I never said anything about what my ethics were, other than that I believed that it was wrong to rob people. For all you knew, my ethics and notions of social behavior were the same as yours. But was that good enough for you? Oh, no way. Because, as an abstract proposition, I look at ethics and self-interest as being "compatible." Oh my! You just hate that! So what's the solution? After I just finished saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs, so there was nothing for hm to "balance" with self-interest, you lie and say that I had just said that my ethics "explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility."
That's childish at best. It's actually considerably worse. That's the kind of tactic that's employed by political ideologies that you no doubt would claim to hate, despite your similar methods.
And this is how you react to a mere difference of opinion regarding how the word "incompatible" should be applied.
So here are some differences between your ethics and mine. You think that lying to win a cheap debating point is just the thing; I don't. You think that disagreeing with you over what is ultimately a stupid issue about semantics, not ethics, puts someone who disagrees with you in the camp that sympathizes with Hitler. I disagree with that approach too. Hitler believed in using the Big Lie to accomplish his purposes; you're not averse to lying either. So am I now supposed to accuse you of being a Nazi sympathizer? Is that the way that "conversations" are supposed to go as far as your concerned?
So snark? You don't like it? It's the mildest thing that I could have issued in response to your contemptible approach to what you now glibly call a "conversation."
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023