Ethics - lies

so here is the first of two papers i am working on. the citations are from Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness (where pg.1 = 20) and Sissela Bok's Lying.


Rand vs. Bok


Ayn Rand believes that the meaning applied to the word selfishness is a problem. She states, “In popular usage, the word ‘selfishness’ is a synonym of evil…(Rand, p.20).” Rand goes so far as to say that this popular meaning “is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind (ibid).”
In Rand’s view the word ‘selfishness’ has a positive value. She points out that the lexical definition of ‘selfishness’ carries no moral judgment. Rather, the definition is simply “concern with one’s own interests (ibid).” It is in the extension of this definition that Rand finds positive value. For instance it is in one’s own interest to survive. This means that it is selfish for one to survive. As surviving is generally considered a good thing, selfishness must not be considered a negative.
Rand argues that the concept of altruism has distorted the popular idea of selfishness such that it not only includes the lexical idea of ‘concern for one’s own interests,’ but also a negative moral judgment. “Altruism,” Rand states, “declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil (Rand, p.21).”
Rand argues that it is altruism, rather than egoism (the practice of selfishness), that should be considered evil. She argues that, “since (humans have) to support (their lives) by (their own efforts), the doctrine that concern with one’s own interests means that (the human) desire to live is evil – that (human) life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that (ibid.).”
Since the alternative to egoism seems to be altruism, Rand believes that we should adopt egoism as a moral code: we should be ethical egoists. There is a difference between egoism and ethical egoism that should be noted: egoism is the practice of acting in one’s own interests, while ethical egoism is the idea that one should act in one’s own interests. Whereas an observer may describe an individual who values their own interests more highly than the interests of others as an egoist, the ethical egoist would make the statement that the individual should be (and is therefore right, for) valuing their own interests more highly than the interests of others.
The concept of ethical egoism impacts moral theory. According to ethical egoism, ideas of right and wrong may need to be reconsidered. Consider the lie as an example. Lies carry a negative value in traditional moral theory. Rand’s ethical egoism does not ascribe an value to lying in general. Lying for the ethical egoist would be considered to be the right thing to do for someone in whose best rational interest it is to lie.
One may challenge this idea by suggesting that it is always in one’s best rational interest to tell a lie. Rand disagrees. Lying may have repercussions that do more harm than the amount of good that was gained from telling the lie. In cases where one knows that there will be great negative repercussions, Rand would say that the one should not lie. She endorses acting upon one’s rational self-interests. “(Ethical egoism) is not a license “to do as (one) pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims (Rand, p.22).” She continues, “This is said as a warning against…(those) who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit (Rand, p.23).”
The case of the lie may be evaluated from another angle. Rather than starting with a moral code, one may start with the lie itself. Let us examine the lie without recourse to ethical egoism in order that we might discover whether or not Rand’s moral code is useful in all cases.
“There must be a minimal degree of trust in communication for language and action to be more than stabs in the dark (Bok, p.19).” states Sissela Bok. Further, she states, “A society, then, whose members were unable to distinguish truthful messages from deceptive ones, would collapse (Bok, p.20).” Perhaps these points provide an explanation as to why philosophers, excepting perhaps Nietzsche, have long sought to discover and express truth, rather than falsity.
Now truth and falsity (lies) are opposites. If truth seems to be desirable within societies, then lies seem to be equally undesirable. Sissela Bok believes that this desire for truth rather than falsity is appropriate. She believes that lying is morally wrong. In support of her belief, she provides three negative traits of lying: lies alter the distribution of power among the liar and the one(s) being told the lie, lies eliminate or obscure relevant alternatives, and lies manipulate the degree of uncertainty with which we look at our decisions (Bok, ps.20-21).
Power among communicating individuals is distributed evenly; all parties having the same amount of power. Lying changes this distribution by taking power from the one(s) being told a lie, and giving that power to the liar. Having more power than another is not prima facie a negative. But, taking power from someone is paramount to making them a partial slave.
Individuals make decisions based on the alternatives presented them. Another reason Bok believes lying is wrong is that lies have the ability to eliminate or obscure these relevant alternatives. When one does not know their relevant alternatives, they cannot make an informed decision.
Lying does not only obscure relevant alternatives though. It also manipulates the degree of uncertainty with which one looks at their decisions. Individuals do not simply evaluate the relevant alternatives and make a decision. They also evaluate the possible outcomes of numerous differing decisions. As lying prevents one from properly evaluating outcomes, we may once again say that lies keep one from making an informed decision.
It seems that Rand’s view that one may lie when it is in their best rational self-interest suggests that one may lie. However, Sissela Bok believes that lying is not acceptable. If one considers Rand’s view of lying in light of the information provided by Bok, it appears that there would never be a situation wherein it is in the best rational self-interest to lie. The liar must consider the consequences of lying when deciding whether or not to lie. The minimal consequences of being caught telling a lie seem to be telling lies in return. This involves a loss of personal power, the obscuring of relevant alternatives, and the manipulation of the degree of uncertainty with one considers decisions. One determining whether nor not to lie must have proof that the good achieved by their lie must be greater than the harm that may be done in response to the lie. As one may never know with certainty the future, it must be ruled out that one may lie as long as it is in their rational self-interests.