Flibbertigibbet

Cooperation is Not a Sin

I was reading over at Ebon Musings about atheism and came across an essay on ethics in which there is the following passing on Objectivist ethics:

Ayn Rand: Objectivism

Author Ayn Rand's philosophical system, known as Objectivism, holds that the ultimate value upon which all other values depend is the individual's life, and that ethics ultimately consists of self-interest, each individual doing whatever benefits his or her life the most. Objectivist moral philosophy rejects altruism, instead arguing that each person should do only what is best for that person.

However, as should be obvious, the glaring problem with Objectivism is that it fails to accommodate Prisoner's Dilemma-like situations. If two or more Objectivists were placed in such a situation, each would immediately pick the option that was best for him individually, and the result would be a poor outcome for all. If all the individuals in this situation are rational (and rationality is a key tenet of Objectivism), they would all soon realize that the only realistic way for any of them to attain a good outcome is for each of them to cooperate and pick the less selfish course of action, i.e., to be altruistic. But this is a contradiction with the basic Objectivist tenet of selfish behavior. The fact that the selfish interests of rational individuals very often conflict, and the fact that doing what is best for us individually sometimes requires acting in altruistic ways, cause the entire system of Objectivism to collapse. To find a workable universal moral code, we must look elsewhere.

The first paragraph is, by my estimation, essentially correct. The Objectivist hierachy of values begins with one's own life.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is loads of fun. It is an illustration of the underlying principles of microeconomics even. Basically, without being able to communicate, two parties are ostensibly given the option to act in their own interest or in the in interest of the other party. Cooperation by both results in the best outcome for the pair. If one betrays the other, the cooperating party loses big time while the betrayer wins big. If they betray one another, the two share the pain, so to speak.

Objectivist ethics does not actually address prisoner's dilemma situations unequivocably because the dilemma lacks context.

How well do the prinsoner's know one another?
Did they not plan for this contingency?
What are the stakes exactly?
What are their chances after the outcome of the game?

At first blush, it's easy to say, "Objectivist ethics requires that each individual act in his own self-interest." But is it not clear that it would be in his best self-interest to cooperate with his partner?

That's the other thing. Objectivist ethics does not permit each individual to completely ignore the contextual information that IS available - namely the benefits of cooperation.

It is not un-selfish, for lack of a better term, to work for your own greatest profit by helping others work to theirs and in the Prisoner's Dilemma it is actually required in order to succeed. Being selfish does not mean that you're bent on the destruction of others; if it did THAT would be a contradiction because one's own success is not defined by the success of others. Putting it more simply, just because someone else succeeds does not mean that all others fail. Just because one helps another does not mean one is being altruistic.

This is perhaps one of the most common misconceptions regarding Objectivist ethics. It's probably honestly earned, but it has been addressed many times over in Objectivist literature.