Objectivism

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

Everyone is acting in their own self interest at all times the way Mises defined in terms of Human Action. Individuals act, individuals are always aiming at a more satisfactory state, so if an individual even sacrifices his life for someone else it was still a selfish act, an act the actor thought would lead to a more satisfactory state. How does this reconcile with Rand's view?

Reading Atlas Shrugged today, for those who haven't done so, is a revelatory experience, as much for its character portrayals of politicians as anything else. Just read about Wesley Mouch and then listen to Eamon Gilmore speak.

I have read the Fountainhead and it didn't fill me with excitement to read Atlas Shrugged. How do they compare?

karma_

Not everyone acts in their own interests all the time, the human race wouldn't have survived if that's how we went about things.

Valmont

karma_ wrote: »

Not everyone acts in their own interests all the time, the human race wouldn't have survived if that's how we went about things.

As far as I'm aware no study has decisively shown that people can act in a purely 'selfless' manner i.e. there was always something in it for them. The one study I can think of which did rendered the concept of Altruism so flexible as to be almost meaningless. Sorry if this is vague; I can dig out the details later if anyone is interested. My background is psychology so I've come across this subject quite a bit over the years.

Valmont

SupaNova wrote: »

I have read the Fountainhead and it didn't fill me with excitement to read Atlas Shrugged. How do they compare?

I just very recently finished reading The Fountainhead for the second time and to be honest, I found it much more gripping and inspirational than Atlas Shrugged. However it's been four years since I read Atlas Shrugged I intend to read it again during the coming year.

Ayn Rand and the World She Made is a fascinating biography by Anne Heller--amazingly objective too considering the subject matter. I'd recommend any Rand fans not familiar with her life and the origins of both the objectivist and libertarian movements to give it a read. It details an encounter she had with Mises which I found quite funny (Rothbard's brief involvement in the movement was also very funny).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And what of a stranger running into the house? How is that rationalised? Mental illness? Hope the act will be rewarded or reciprocated?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Judith there agrees that altruism does exist. Is it surprising that it's an evolutionary by-product, or something that makes us feel good? Absolutely not. Even taking this into consideration, it appears to be contradictory to Rand's philosophy. Altruism also exists in the animal kingdom, it's been documented which again points to more of an evolutionary explanation.

It's also quite the clever thread, as there is infinite room for moving goalposts to allow Rand's philosophy to fit into what we know about altruism.

Valmont

The spirit that Rand railed against has already surfaced in this thread; Karma_, alluding to the idea that the negation of one's individuality and self is a positive thing in terms of a "selfless" act and how important this selflessness has been to humankind. Why should we worship an ideology that has self-immolation at its core? And I'm not mincing your words, Karma_, a selfless act by it's very nature necessitates the negation of one's individuality; that doesn't sit right with me-- at all. And my own interest in Rand stemmed from being assaulted on all corners with this collectivist rhetoric. I was sick of it and glad to hear an alternative.

I've read most of Rand's non-fiction but I'm still unsure of Objectivism per sé. Some of the loudest voices behind America's domination of the Middle East have been objectivists and well, I'm not too sure about it all to be honest! This didn't help either:D.

I can see this thread turning into a bloodbath but I look forward to reading the responses until that point!

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

The spirit that Rand railed against has already surfaced in this thread; Karma_, alluding to the idea that the negation of one's individuality and self is a positive thing in terms of a "selfless" act and how important this selflessness has been to humankind. Why should we worship an ideology that has self-immolation at its core? And I'm not mincing your words, Karma_, a selfless act by it's very nature necessitates the negation of one's individuality; that doesn't sit right with me-- at all. And my own interest in Rand stemmed from being assaulted on all corners with this collectivist rhetoric. I was sick of it and glad to hear an alternative.

I've read most of Rand's non-fiction but I'm still unsure of Objectivism per sé. Some of the loudest voices behind America's domination of the Middle East have been objectivists and well, I'm not too sure about it all to be honest! This didn't help either:D.

I can see this thread turning into a bloodbath but I look forward to reading the responses until that point!

I took this as a compliment, the further away from Rand and her selfish cult I am, the better.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is just pure rhetoric. It's meaningless. No one is asking you to worship the fact that deep down, encoded into our DNA there is a mechanism that will promote altruistic behaviour under certain circumstances.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hayte

And you are that hero huh?

Valmont

Hayte wrote: »

And you are that hero huh?

Can we try to keep this civil just for once?!:mad:

Rand did not in any way deny that pure altruism exists; just look at the character of Katie in The Fountainhead. This character ended up living a purely selfless existence in the style of one that the Church would encourage. So let's not turn this into a thread on whether altruism is possible but more about is altruism a doctrine we should encourage and attempt to live ourselves? Or should we, like Rand, reject it in favour of an existence motivated by self-interest?

nesf

Hayte wrote: »

And you are that hero huh?

Let's try and not get personal please.

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

Can we try to keep this civil just for once?!:mad:

Rand did not in any way deny that pure altruism exists; just look at the character of Katie in The Fountainhead. This character ended up living a purely selfless existence in the style of one that the Church would encourage. So let's not turn this into a thread on whether altruism is possible but more about is altruism a doctrine we should encourage and attempt to live ourselves? Or should we, like Rand, reject it in favour of an existence motivated by self-interest?

Selflessness can exist outside the influence of the Church or the State.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

I'm not sure I agree with number 1 but I like the rest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spacedog

Adam Curtis' documentary 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace' features an in depth analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophies and their effect on modern society. I'd recommend it.

Incidentally I read this today and thought of people with no empathy for those less well off. I wonder what Rand would make of it.

Eliot Rosewater

I'm intrigued by how the four bullet points in Permabear's Rand quote relate to each other; i.e., how Rand uses her objective reality argument to lead to her self-interested man argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The logical explanation for egotism is really interesting. It appears to confound many, not least David Hume! In the second appendix of An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals he attempts to dismiss the argument with an ad hominem (was he a member of Boards?!):

THERE is a principle [that altruistic people are motived by self-interest], supposed to prevail among many, which is utterly incompatible with all virtue or moral sentiment; and as it can proceed from nothing but the most depraved disposition, so in its turn it tends still further to encourage that depravity.

I'm not convinced by Judith Lichtenberg's refutation either. The logical argument for egotism isn't a scientific theory to be tested precisely because it is a logical argument, so I don't see how recourse to falsification theory refutes it. By the same recourse one could argue that much of mathematics is wrong and unacceptable precisely because it so irrefutable - it can't be falsified either.

I find it such an interesting argument because it appears so strong and yet leads to a conclusion few would agree with!

zero_hope

Objectivists are a bit like Nazis and they want to commit genocide upon Arabs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Ayn Rand wrote:

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

This is what bugs the crap out of me about Ayn Rand. She is seemingly incapable of distinguishing any shades of grey in her philosophy at all.

She's the queen of the straw man argument. I mean, who (besides she) claims that man has no right to exist for his own sake? Is it that really that much of a logical stretch for an objectivist to understand that someone can be somewhat altruistic?

I don't believe that service to others is the only justification of my existence. Neither do I believe that I exist entirely for my own sake. By Ayn Rand's definitions, I therefore don't exist.

If you have to harshly caricature other people's views in order to oppose them, doesn't that betray a fundamental insecurity about your own?

AhSureTisGrand

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Is this knowledge in the practical sense or the philosophical one? I'm very doubtful about the 100% certainty, 100% correctness sort of knowledge. Seems to me also that someone with zero reason can perceive reality, just not understand it. But hey! We can't understand reality either. 

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

If I am, say, a psychopath and a serial killer, and my work fills me with the greatest of happiness,  then acting in my own rational self-interest would result in sacrificing lots of people to myself. A normal person, of course, would not be serving their own interests by going on a murderous rampage, even if they could get away with it. But does Objectivism imply that this psychopath has a duty to others (albeit an effortless one) not to kill them, even though it conflicts with his rational self-interest?

As for "man must exist for his own sake", I think it's up to him what he exists for. Though maybe that's what Rand meant

I am indeed very doubtful about selflessness. I don't think it's possible to truly put the interests of others above your own. Implied in any  of your conscious actions is that you wanted to do them. You may wish you could do an infinite number of other things, but ultimately you have chosen what you identify as the best option. In this sense of the word "want", doing something you don't want to do is absurd.

If we are talking about "selflessness" as seen in pulling a stranger's children out of a house on fire...

I think it's clear that the hero of the story gets emotional benefit out of saving lives. This is due to the natural and perfectly healthy sense of empathy, which has evolved in humans an other social animals. Rescuing the children feels good in a very profound way. Perhaps more importantly, not rescuing the children could result in crippling guilt for the average human being, who does not like seeing others suffer. Self-interest, in my opinion, is much more charitable and caring than people make it out to be.

If you find I am making no sense, feel free to watch this clip from Friends. I'm on Joey's side in this matter. Phoebe is a wonderful and generous person, but that doesn't mean she isn't selfish, and that doesn't mean selfishness is bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzQSEoNdGvk

nesf

zero_hope wrote: »

Objectivists are a bit like Nazis and they want to commit genocide upon Arabs.

Infracted and banned. Two weeks off from the forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, yes. It's still a strawman. I don't live my live by the definitions of socialism, any more than I live it by the definitions of objectivisim, libertarianism or pastafarianism. I sometimes do things for reasons I consider to be altrusitic, and that altruism bears no resemblance to Rand's definition thereof.

As quoted earlier, Rand said that, in her writings, altruism should not be confused with kindness or good will. In fact, she believes that genuine kindness or good will can only take place in the absence of altruism, which she seems to define as the social imperative to self-sacrifice.

I've already rejected her premise - and you serve it back up to me as a counter-argument?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sarkozy

This whole discussion presupposes the fact of a self-contained individual subject. I don't find that a tenable position.

The first philosophical question to ask, therefore, is "can a human being be entirely separate from all other beings?" This question is ontological.

For Objectivism, the next question is: "can human beings be entirely rational?" This question is epistemological. To be specific: in the ways that Rand, her accolyte Alan Greenspan, and game theorists like John Nash saw it, all self-maximising choices/actions are rational. This is a funny kind of rationality because, using a strict interpretation as Rand did, 'rationalism' can lead to very self-destructive outcomes. Even Kant, a founder of rationalism, accepted that rationalism can descend into incoherence, hence his belief that where that happens, something is 'immoral' (the Categorical Imperative).

And this leads me on to the final question of ethics. If all self-maximising choices/actions are rational, therefore they are good. But if, rationally, this can lead to rational incoherence, and even self-destructive outcomes, how can that be good? For what else do self-contained, self-maximising, immoral human beings live?

Here, the Randian argument is revealed: it's an argument of circular logic which appears self-supporting but is based on false premises. I do not believe that Objectivism can stand up to scrutiny and even in Rand's own life, her commitment to her selfish worldview was torn asunder.

I would have a different proposition, but I'm first inviting discussion on these points. It's an interesting debate.

RussellTuring

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More on Objectivism can be found in this recent NPR piece on Ayn Rand.

I could be described as an objectivist. I believe fully and completely in a world of reason, in which the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are paramount. Like Rand, I see that collectivist movements such as religion and socialism exist to convince us that we should live our lives in a self-sacrificing, supplicatory way, ultimately for the benefit of a self-appointed and self-serving elite, whether it be the government or the Vatican.

Reading Atlas Shrugged today, for those who haven't done so, is a revelatory experience, as much for its character portrayals of politicians as anything else. Just read about Wesley Mouch and then listen to Eamon Gilmore speak.[/QUOTE]

I found myself increasingly at odds with Rand's points as I went through them. How she got from the first three to her final conclusion is a mystery to me; it's a bit of a leap, to say the least.

Madd Finn

Christopher Hitchens gives objectivism and Ayn Rand an amusing bitch slap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7c-Ei7btbI

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Even more so capitalism, ads every 5 minutes on the telly, ads on bus stops... is the world not pure enough for you, Permabear?

Perhaps if we taxed selfless deeds to prevent the cancer of altruism from spreading..

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is what bugs the crap out of me about Ayn Rand. She is seemingly incapable of distinguishing any shades of grey in her philosophy at all.

I have great admiration for Ayn Rand because she was always ten steps ahead of her opposition:

Ayn Rand wrote:

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today's culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: "There are no blacks and whites; there are only grays."

This is asserted in regard to persons, actions, principles of conduct, and morality in general. "Black and white," in this context, means "good and evil." (The reverse order used in that catch phrase is interesting psychologically.)

In any respect one cares to examine, that notion is full of contradictions (foremost among them is the fallacy of "the stolen concept"). If there is no black and white, there can be no gray -- since gray is merely a mixture of the two.

Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil.

If a moral code (such as altruism) is, in fact, impossible to practice, it is the code that must be condemned as "black," not its victims evaluated as "gray." If a moral code prescribes irreconcilable contradictions -- so that by choosing the good in one resspect, a man becomes evil in another -- it is the code that must be rejected as "black." If a moral code is inapplicable to reality -- if it offers no guidance except a series of arbitrary, groundless, out-of-context injunctions and commandments, to be accepted on faith and practiced automatically, as blind dogma -- its practitioners cannot properly be classified as "white" or "black" or "gray": a moral code that forbids and paralyzes moral judgment is a contradiction in terms.

Full essay.

RichieC

Rand had no problem claiming her social security in her later years.

hypocrite.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

have you read about the history of PR? obviously not if you don't think it's coercive force.

why do you think they hire psychologists in PR firms?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

yea, perhaps you should just read up on it so.

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

Rand had no problem claiming her social security in her later years.

hypocrite.

If you pay into social security you should get your money back when you grow old, regardless of political opinions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

She was nothing but a schlock novelist and fantasist anyway. and an awful human by most accounts.

I find it rather ridiculous she's even mentioned in a political theory forum.

It's funny how low libertarians go to find people that agree with their ideological illness.

Joe1919

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his ONLY guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

The above argument is very weak and has been traditionally attacked by the likes of David Hume and Immanuel Kant e.g. 'The critique of pure reason'. It can be argued that our pre-conceptions, emotions, customs etc. are also important guides to action and to the perception of reality. It can also be argued that the view of reality that we have is not a 'true' view but the view thats most useful to us (pragmatism) and has the greatest survival value to us or perhaps the dominant culture.(a sort of survival of the fittest or 'might is right' )

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

I have great admiration for Ayn Rand because she was always ten steps ahead of her opposition:

Ayn Rand wrote:

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today's culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: "There are no blacks and whites; there are only grays."

It's a veritable straw man army around here today.

I didn't say there were no blacks and whites, and I'm unaware of anyone who has said that other than Rand.

In fact, it would be pretty difficult for me to continue to consistently argue against extremists of all stripes if I were to assert that extremes don't exist.

karma_

Another thing that gets to me about Rand was that she didn't even believe in her own philosophy, evidenced by her exclusion of the Brandens from her inner circle after she learned of their affair, when all they were doing was following their own selfish, as Rand would describe it, desires.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

It's funny how low libertarians go to find people that agree with their ideological illness.

Less of the usual attacks and generalisations and more of the discussion about the actual philosophy please.

Madd Finn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

.....and Beckenbauer is appealing for offside!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2F4hONEAkk

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

Less of the usual attacks and generalisations and more of the discussion about the actual philosophy please.

I would if it was an actual philosophy, but it isn't.

It's not taken seriously by philosophical scholars at all. More the realm of self styled entrepreneurs and 'business leaders'..

An excuse for greed and selfishness does not a philosophy make.