Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[abaris]

She did not advocate preying on the disadvantaged. Producers don't need to prey on anyone. People gladly give of their wages to obtain what the producer has to offer. But she didn't believe producers should be legally compelled to support the disadvantaged, y'know; with their taxes and stuff. She didn't have a problem with voluntary charity stemming from benevolence.

There's a difference between not caring or outright preying. Everyone pays taxes, and it's the civilized way to support the disadvantaged with tax money. They aren't disadvantaged by choice - in their vast majority - there are people working their ass off in two or three jobs without scratching a decent living. There's a whole plethora of things I don't want to see my tax money wasted on, but helping the disadvantaged isn't on the list. It's a sense of entitlement she's transporting. Make your way and don't look left or right while trying to get your own fill. It is the sociopath's way, even if it's just looking the other way instead of actually preying.

[Mister Agenda]

Abaris, given you left off the last paragraph of my post you responded to; just want to make sure: do you think I support Rand's position?

[abaris]

Abaris, given you left off the last paragraph of my post you responded to; just want to make sure: do you think I support Rand's position?

Even if you did, it wouldn't be any business of mine. I give you my opinion, you give me yours. I quoted the part that seemed most interesting to me. Since I wanted to make it clear that I never said, she actually called for preying on the weak. Just to look the other way.

As I said before, there are certain elements in Rand's philosophy I actually support. Common sense, rationale, striving for fulfillment. But I don't buy the whole package with looking the other way when anyone's in need. And I think the bad outweighs the good, since Rand to the letter would lead to soiopathic behavior.

[robvalue]

I agree that any "closed system" of morality is a bad idea, in my opinion.

We learn and we grow. I don't know why you'd try to stifle that.

It does indeed sound like social Darwinism, which is utterly insane to me. How the word "should" is even applied in such situations, I don't know. We "should" be maximally selfish at the expense of others? Says who, nature? I doubt any reasonable person would find this compelling anyway.

I think you could make a strong case that she tries to get an 'ought' from an 'is' and fails; as Hume would have predicted.

I agree with Hume, it can't be done. One cannot objectively determine what "ought" to happen because it's entirely dependent on subjective value judgements. Without them, "ought" has no meaning.

You're right, I think that could be her plan.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think it comports with reality very well, that out altruism has evolutionary antecedents. Furthermore the idea that it equates to "suicide" is a fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

Unless you bother to understand how she defines altruism, which is the same way previous philosophers such as August Comte, who described altruism as 'living for the sake of others'. James Feiser says altruism means that 'An action is morally right if the consequence of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.'

That degree of self-abnegation being comparable to a sort of 'suicide of the ego' is not a reductio ad absurdum nor any other fallacy. However treating her specifically defined use of the word altruism as though she meant the common use is an example of equivocation if done intentionally.

It's been so long since I've read her stuff that I had forgotten that she had her own definition. I don't remember her using the term "suicide of the ego", either. Did she?

[The Grand Nudger]

I recently discoved Ayn Rand and learned about her philosphical views. I found it extremely interesting. The idea that "altruism is immoral" completel goes against all my previous ideas and intuitions, and therefore is quite an uncomfortable idea to entertain, but when I pushed through and read more about what she meant by it, it makes a lot of sense to me. To put it in my own words, she argues that people should not sacrifice themselves for other people if it does not fit with their own needs, because it is equal to suicide. If you help someone, do it because you have a need to do so, not because you think you should do that because you want to be a good person. You are responsible for your own life, and your own happiness. This sounds very healthy to me. I want people around me to live like this, I want my loved ones taking good care of themselves. Most people also have a need to take care of the people around them and to connect with them,  so I don't think that this philosophy leads to people to live self centred lives. It is very counter-intuitive, but it makes sense to me.

What do you think? Do I describe her philosophy well? Is there a flaw in this reasoning? Has this philosophy impacted your ideas as well?

Rather than explain, by reason, why altruism is immoral..the arguer would simply hope that he/she could liken every altruistic act to suicide -and- that every suicidal action is deemed to be uniformly immoral in the first place.  

Bait and switch.

[Complidudaaldo]

Altruism is, like

You shall not murder.
But God condones killing, because murder is a subjective form of killing objective to the attributes which made it murder. Thus You shall not murder, is Altruism, but the law, you shall not murder is not; Because "murdering" someone is determined by ethics, nor physical actions,
not intentions or outcomes, but by pre-determined vindication of moral practice and implications.

Justly, "Ye shall not murder" is in fact Altruism - if I am right about what altruism is, *I am asking* - because it is objective to the actual event of murder vs killing, which is objective..

give me some love. what the fuck is altruism. if I am wrong.


is it simply, self-centered-ness? - vs holistic
& self-righteousness? - & vs righteous

---

double posting**
for this:

thus, Ye shall not murder is only perceived as Altrusim, because they are wrong to assert it is objective to killing, and not subjective to conditions.

Now. did I interpret altruism correctly over all? for this scenario? or is altruism nothing to do with objective and subjective laws and regulations?

---

FAWKK.. googled it. That's a ridiculous belief system... whores in basements can get gangbanged by machines. I'mma just wack off to it without regard. XD LOLz

[TheRealJoeFish]

Play BioShock. That will give you a fun and worthwhile primer into the logical progression of Andrew Ryan'sAyn Rand's philosophy writ large.

[MyGLeonTrotsky]

It's not a philosophy. It's sociopathy/psychopathy codified. The only philosophy Rand knew of was Aristotelianism, by her own admission, and she was a hypocrite who took government benefits before she died.

[bennyboy]

Play BioShock. That will give you a fun and worthwhile primer into the logical progression of Andrew Ryan'sAyn Rand's philosophy writ large.

Andrew Ryan?  Real character name?

That's really clever!