John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, debates David Kelley

[@TheAtlasSociety]

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.

[@TheAtlasSociety]

Glad you enjoyed this Stuart.

[@Avidcomp]

Sir, you made my day. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. I am used to people attacking my views and so I try to refrain from defending them as much as possible because it's time I do not want to give. I applaud you. You have taken the initiative to figure it out yourself, would you be surprised to know that most people do not bother? They'd rather just rant. I would gladly provide you with any further information/material should you ask. Best wishes to you.

[@LobsterFusion]

I agree with Mr. Kelley on mostly everything. The only thing thing I agreed with Mr. Mackey on, and this is minor, is Kelley's and Rand's definition of the word selfish. The majority of the people do not view that word the way they, and other objectivists do. So why bother giving it some special definition? Lets just stick with the term "rational self interest" instead. This was a very interesting debate and I enjoyed it. Good job. :)

[@wootendw]

Mr. Mackey reminds me of Mr. Macy's character in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th Street". In the movie, the 'defendant', Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwen) , who is employed as Macy's Santa Clause, is in danger of being committed because he insists he is Santa Claus. The DA asks Macy, on the witness stand, if he believes Kringle is Santa Claus. Macy hesitates while envisioning a newspaper headline "Macy Admits His Santa Claus Is A Fraud". After a pause, Macy says "I do" - as would John Mackey.

Such a shame that the ARI and TAS aren't able to come together on promoting objectivism.

[@Robb3348]

Peikoff can't get along with anyone, obviously. In this, he's just the extreme case of a very common syndrome among Objectivists.

[@orospakr]

The resolution, I humbly submit, is that all of those values that Mr. Mackey spoke about, love, generosity, empathy, etc., are just that: terms for values, freely chosen in the fully objectivist sense. Their effectiveness is embodied in the Silicon Valley mantra of "Create more value than you capture." Not only that, but Mackey unwittingly gives the same definition of happiness as Rand: that state resulting from the achievement of your values (not an end in itself).

[@legendre007]

Thank you for uploading this debate. This is an important topic. :-)

[@Avidcomp]

I quite agree. Assuming there has not already been a coup, then said government would be in breach of the law. They certainly wouldn't be re-elected and as protection of man's inalienable rights would be their only purpose and they wish to remain in government - what incentive would they have to do such a thing? Remember with this limited role, they have no position in the economy and therefore lobbyists wouldn't exist. Such an action would be irrational.

[@drbudgy]

None of this was obvious to me years ago but now when I hear people describe self interest as leading to lying, cheating and stealing, etc. It is hard to take this seriously, is Mackey trying to make an argument that it is in your self interest to act in such atrocious ways?

[@RedtreeJoe]

i feel like a comprehensive pre agreement on the definitions of certain keywords in this debate would make the debate itself impossible to have.

[@movmakerNeo]

I had to think twice when I heard about "altruism is not benevolence, benevolence is good and altruism is not" but I get it now, its just that the two terms are used interchangeably and that's why the "mob" often doesn't get it. altruism, being forced self sacrifice through a system of government = really, really bad. cause then the gov. gets to define whats good for the "mob" benevolence being consensually helping others for their benefit = good. society helping itself by choice, not law.

[@Mike82ARP]

Excellent presentation of the real meaning of “self interest” Dr. Kelley. Mr. Mackey had no choice but to redefine “selfishness” in a vernacular sense in order to mount any plausible rebuttal to your view. I found Mr. Mackey’s referencing a dictionary for a definition of selfishness almost laughable. It must be frustrating to have to repeatedly address this issue.

[@dreyescope6926]

I got to 55:01, but I simply CAN'T BEAR to listen to Mr. Mackey repeat his (inadequate) opening comments yet again. He offers nothing new in his second and third statements at all. And Rand did not say that selfishness was the ONLY virtue,as he seems to think. Her list of virtues consists of "much more" (to borrow a favorite expression of Mackey's). It surprised me that Mr. Kelley did not point this out in his third statement.

[@purposefirst]

In a 1959 interview, Mike Wallace said to Ayn (paraphrased): According to your philosophy and concepts, very few of us are worthy of love. Ayn responded: Unfortunately that is true. Ayn Rand was an amazing individual, but she was an extremist. Her ethics and view of human nature was very lop-sided. Mackey's view is more consistent with human nature.

[@dreyescope6926]

purposefirst I'm not quite sure why you addressed this to me, but I must disagree with you in any case."IT" (compromise on principles) may be consistent with the behaciour of the average person, but it is not more implicit in human nature than adherence to principle. Human beings have a rational faculty but are not omniscient (the comment below,by potterfan392 presumes this)- and so-HOW, if not by rigid adherence to principle ("extremeism") are we to judge that any action we wish to pursue is consistent with the needs of our nature? (cont'd)

[@dreyescope6926]

DrEyescope (cont'd) We cannot achieve our values by randomly pursuing anything we desire, and we cannot achieve them by mixing them with a bit of their opposite.When it comes to virtues, they have to be practiced consistently if we wish to reap the rewards they promise. That is; virtue is NOT its own reward, but its proper,consistent exercise IS consonant with human nature. Compromise on principle is not,and cannot achieve virtues' proper ends. I think you can find Ayn Rand's own thoughts if you check the (online) Lexicon under "compromise".

[@dreyescope6926]

purposefirst In the event that you find my comments below too broad, allow me to ask: What are the negative results of being "extremely"- Just,Productive,Rational,Independent, and Honest, or of having "too much" Integrity, or (taking into account that it is the "crown of the virtues" and the result of having achieved the others) Pride? How is it more "natural" to temper these (the virtues according to Objectivism), with their opposites?

[@purposefirst]

DrEyescope You suggest that Rand was "extremely - Just." For the moment I'll focus on that point. The fact that she considered very few people to be worthy of love suggests that she was not being just (or particularly rational). She happened to possess very high intelligence. How about all the people of average intelligence who do not have the capacity to be Howard Roarks or John Galts? They are not worthy of love?

[@fexurbis123]

A lot of talking past each other comes down to people not willing to acknowledge words may have more than one meaning. I think David Kelley's argument would have been stronger if he had given examples of benevolence versus examples of sacrifice (which is the distinction John evaded), and asked John Mackey: "What would you like to call them for purposes of this discussion?" The important things are the definitions and their consistent use, logically, not the labels. If you hold on to labels, you give people who hold cognitively dissonant views an easy opportunity to evade logical distinctions. Which is what the left has gotten away with by conflating free markets with mixed economies, simply because defenders of the first are married to the word "capitalism."

[@Avidcomp]

I can do better, get me up there. Dictionary says: to serve's one's own interest. That's the definition..it does not discuss whether those interests are good or evil..this is a matter of ethics. What's not to understand?

[@marce11o]

The Whole Foods guy is weak. None of the virtues he lists is in any way a conflict with selfishness. Those virtues are a result of selfishness. He totally doesn't get it. You do something for your child because its YOUR CHILD. Its not someone else's! Still selfish! This was a semantics problem.

[@debg2359]

Georgie, With all due respect, you seem to be grossly oversimplifying the research to date regarding the structure and function of the human brain. Please provide peer-reviewed research where abstract, psychological concepts such as "selfishness" are linked causally to neuronal activity. It is my understanding that no such causal relationship has been "proven," and indeed, belongs in the realm of the theoretical, dare I say, social/political sciences.

[@orospakr]

Ah, alas for moral hazard. In a mixed economy (and all the distortions that implies), it becomes difficult to disambiguate whether you benefit from corruption, let alone others. Virtually everyone either is hurt or "benefits" (although those that "benefit" often suffer from the same reduction in general productivity as everyone else) from it, and it is virtually unknowable to what degree. I cannot in good conscience denigrate Mr. Mackey for that. Indeed, I'd say that he has done well.

[@philbowers7891]

Regarding David Kelly's parody of the sex vs. profit cultural "inversion," those of who are younger than, say, about 65 years old may not know about long-standing governor James Rhodes of Ohio's use of the following as a campaign slogan in the 1960's: "Profit is not a dirty word in Ohio."

[@movmakerNeo]

Thanks for the reply XD. Such words as altruism and benevolence have so much emotional meaning I think people just would rather not figure out the difference. I couldn't fit my whole post here so I've sent you a pm :)

[@666katch]

I agree with Mr. Mackey!

[@muckypup595]

On what?

[@petrosianii]

Mackey did well here. I found him actually more persuasive than Kelley.

[@samuils]

To CEO of whole foods, I have one question. Why are you selling your food at such high prices? I mean after all you think supposedly about others, and the community at large, so why such high prices? Why not just sell at a loss to your company? Oh but then you see he says that his thinking of his employees, ok then why not pay them as much as you pay yourself?

[@muckypup595]

I lost some respect for Mackey. He made no philosophical argument about a topic of philosophy. Selfish in philosophy is "Holding one’s self-interest as the standard for decision making." So does Mackey believe in the standard is something or someone else? He doesn't seem to think so, which means he is selfish and doesn't know it because he uses out of context definitions rooted in religion. Glad he denounced "altruism" which was the best thing he said. He sounds like a practical objectivist that can't break free of religion because he said "faith" was a primary virtue.

[@petrosianii]

Ok so you're gonna pit an Ivy-league philosopher against a CEO? Not really fair, is it?

[@Avidcomp]

I would have to conclude that one cannot benefit from a mixed economy. In Mackey's case he clearly has benefited in the immediate sense, but by doing so he has not only lost integrity he has lost the rational argument for supporting a system that will make future generations less productive. I suspect his grandchildren will not be as fortunate in a broken economy, and I doubt contemplating that will bring him happiness. The hazard is from a lack of morality.

[@Avidcomp]

The mistake you are making is to think that morality should be defined by someone other than yourself when you ask "who does determine that?" Individuals need to define their own morality, a code in which they can live by. The role of Government/Police is to limit the use of force against those that INITIATE force or coercion against others. If an individual has their own moral code that does not breach this caveat then no one is being hurt or oppressed.

[@lnostdal]

David is making series of straw man arguments here. People often don't understand the subtle circular nature of "selfishness"; in order to reach ones goals in life (i.e. 100% *selfish* goals) one cannot be a *narcissist* - these things just aren't related. One really do need to grok the basics here - or all further conversation and argumentation is just a waste of time.

[@Avidcomp]

John Mackey claims to support free markets, but his wealth stems from organic farming which is subsidised by government, thus taxpayers, thus not free markets. He has had a vested interest in the status quo and is a liar.

[@wootendw]

Mr. Mackey reminds me of Mr. Macy's character in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th Street". In the movie, the 'defendant', Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwen) , who is employed as Macy's Santa Clause, is in danger of being committed because he insists he is Santa Claus. The DA asks Macy, on the witness stand, if he believes Kringle is Santa Claus. Macy hesitates while envisioning a newspaper headline "Macy Admits His Santa Claus Is A Fraud". After a pause, Macy says "I do" - as would John Mackey.