This will not mean as much to those who have not seen Big Fish.
So my very own Sandra Templeton is walking around campus each and every day. Sometimes I see her on the way to class. Other times I am lucky enough to run into her as I am leaving campus. When I see her I take the chance to speak to her. Alas though, she is Sandra Templeton. She is taken.
When Edward Bloom first sees Sandra Templeton, time stands still. Perhaps this is something that happens differently to each man, or maybe the movie just got it wrong. When I saw Miss Templeton for the first time, time itself did not stand still. I saw Sandra, then I saw her leave. There was, in fact, nothing peculiar about time at all. I definitely noticed that I was as quickly deprived of her beauty as I was introduced to it. An interesting thing did happen though: the rest of the evening happened as background events. Actions were memorable due only to the fortuity that they happened on the day that I saw the most beautiful woman alive. This was three years ago.
Imagine my surprise when, at the beginning of the term, I start passing her on my way to, and from, classes. I had only seen Sandra a couple of times in the years following the first encounter, and had never spoken to her, so I never thought anything of seeing her with regularity. It was just a bonus.
Three weeks ago I made the mistake of mentioning to a friend that I had been seeing this beautiful lady quite frequently. Of course, my friend turns out to be her friend too (for now let’s not go into how I didn’t’ figure this out earlier). Also, of course, my friend tells me to introduce myself to Sandra, which I managed to do soon after. In the following weeks I had the pleasure of walking to and from class with Miss Templeton, talking about oddities of class. We discussed whatever happened to be about the day.
My problems didn’t begin until I asked a friend about her. Apparently Miss Templeton was not only gorgeous; she was also one of the most amazing people alive. Friends and acquaintances spoke univocally of her caring and kindness. Literally every time I mentioned the name ‘Sandra Templeton’, someone nearby said, “She’s so sweet.” I was beginning to think that I had encountered a regular fount of concern for others. I was beginning to find Miss Templeton quite attractive. It didn’t take long to decide whether or not I would ask her out. I had a little chip on my shoulder cautioning me to not to expose myself, and years of existential thought telling me that I only have one chance to make live ‘abundant.’
I wasn’t sure how I was going to ask her out, but I didn't have to wait long for an opportune moment. When I couldn’t reach her to invite her to lunch one day, I knew that I had found my opportunity: It was a day that I normally walked from class with Sandra.
I left class early, and headed to the library. After getting a bit of advice I grabbed a friend and proceeded to run to my vehicle. The time was 2:45, and I am guessing Sandra usually gets to her car around 3:20. In order that I may not be seen, I had to make it back by 3:15 at the latest. Luckily, I managed to drive from the school to a local florist and back in less than twenty minutes. When I spotted her car I knew that I still had a chance. I placed on her windshield a card that I had bought, on which I had written, “I can never catch you for lunch; Would you like to try dinner instead?”
I also placed a single white rose.
Do not forget her name though. We are still talking about Sandra Templeton, and Sandra is taken.
And the worst part? This is a true story. I don’t have writers giving me lines, and noone is deciding for Miss Templeton whether or not to allow Ed into her life. If I shower Miss Templeton with the movie's unasked-for affection, I am afraid I will drive her even further away.
I’m sorry that this story doesn’t really have a great ending. Although don’t blame me, I didn’t write it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Monday, September 27, 2004
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)