Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 12, 2016 at 9:29 am (This post was last modified: July 12, 2016 at 9:30 am by 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.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Faith No More Wrote:Can't say I agree with you. In fact, fuck her and fuck her philosophy. It's nothing but a justification for her own selfishness and greed.
We're all stuck on this big, blue marble together, and the world would be a much more pleasant place to live if we could all learn to help each other out instead of simply focusing on our own needs and desires. It's precisely because of the selfishness Rand advocates that the world can be such a shitty place to live, and I cannot and will not condone such an attitude.
Or it could have been a reaction to the communist takeover of her homeland and the Bolsheviks confiscating her father's business. An antipathy to communism led her to formulate a philosophy that is arguably the opposite.
We can't learn to help each other if we're convinced that people who don't agree with us are motivated by moustache-twirling villainy.
July 12, 2016 at 9:41 am (This post was last modified: July 12, 2016 at 9:42 am by robvalue.)
In fact, her "morality" sounds like someone trying to strawman what an atheist "would" be like. I've heard several people say pretty much the exact thing. It's just, atheists aren't like that, in general. People aren't like that. It's against their nature. Even if they don't care about the world at large, localised tribalism is very much ingrained.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Thumpalumpacus Wrote: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.
A curious thing about Ayn Rand:
I knew nearly nothing about her, until I heard her name on a podcast some of you may know https://serialpodcast.org/2015/12/season-two-welcome. The tale of a US soldier, in Afghanistan, who walked out of his base and got captured by the Taliban, remained in captivity for some 5 years until he got exchanged by some 3 prisoners. I was listening to this podcast, and, at some point, they mention that the soldier had been influenced by Ayn's ideas.
In parallel, I was reading the book "The Believing Brain", by Michael Shermer, where Michael also claims to have been influenced by Ayn's ideas.
Both these events (me listening to the bit about the soldier's background and reading about Michael's own background) happened, at most, 2 days apart. In both cases, I was treated with a synopsis of Ayn's philosophy and that was my intro to Ayn and it gave me everything I want to know about her....
I immediately saw that it's not for me... but that's to be expected, I guess, as I'm from a socialist European country, the P in PIGS.
Excited Penguin Wrote:The more intelligent you are, no matter how selfish you can be, you'll still help others, because that is in your own self-interest. The dumber you are though, you can be a saint, you'll probably do more harm than good and not even know it. That's how I think the world works.
That's not how she saw it. She talked about moochers, not about intelligence. People sitting back and taking it from the makers. And nevermind the fact that in her late years she herself became a moocher living off social security. Because she simply couldn't afford her cancer treatment anymore. Splendid example of hypocrisy. She couldn't even live up to her own standards.
Except that she explicitly wrote long before then that there is nothing wrong with benefitting from a system you've been compelled to contribute to your whole life. In her view, a 'moocher' is someone who is capable of taking care of themselves who demands value from others because they are needy but resent the producers upon whom they depend.
Quote:The wolves abuse the social contract: without the sheep, there would be nothing for the wolves to feed on, without the working joe, there would be nobody to sweat on behalf of the ambitious.
Her idea is flawed, I think, in that she sees life as a zero-sum game: if I give you something, I will have less. But this isn't true: I will have support when my luck goes sour, because I've invested in friendships. I'll have the support of my community, because I'm a member in good standing. I'll also have a greater joy-- because I am PART of something bigger than myself, and well-adjusted people have a desire to contribute to a greater good. Also, even in economic terms-- the selfish accumulation of wealth is leading to economic slowdown and a net loss for the American economy; so her views are short-sighted in that sense.
Now, if it is in your nature to be as she describes, then you may accumulate wealth and achieve your dreams. But whether standing by while your peers suffer is anything less than being a dick, that's up to you to decide.
She didn't regard the 'working joes' as sheep, but as the backbone of society. In Atlas Shrugged, they are part of the revolution.
She didn't see life as zero-sum, she saw 'unfettering the producers' as a way to make 'the pie' bigger, which would benefit everyone willing to work. I'm pretty sure she didn't advocate not having any friends, nor did she advocate the accumulation of wealth as an end in itself. Our economy is not based on Randian economics, and she would be appalled at the rent-seeking behavior of many large corporations. She was a Goldwater gal, not a Trumpian.
In your last paragraph you capture her true failure: she didn't fully understand our impulse to help others even if it gains us nothing.
Of course, where she was an ethical egoist, I'm a psychological egoist: people do good because of what they get out of it, and that's fine.
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?
You summarise her position very well. As an observation of human behaviour, it works well; people behave in that way all the time. The problem for me is when her position becomes a suggested practice because it means that all positive/progressive action is based on a cynical calculation of individual benefit with bias towards one position; net benefit is a secondary consideration and most likely eroded by the bias. Her position is demonstrably less progressive than altruism, even reciprocal altruism, which typically delivers greater net benefit because of the exclusion of the personal benefit. You're right that altruism may require forms of sacrifice but equating that to suicide is unsupportable as a common side-effect of altruism is reciprocation: one good turn deserves another.
For me, it's very much like the Christian promise of heaven and can be criticised in the same way: if you're only doing good because of the promise of some reward, your behaviour is ethically inferior to someone who is good for goodness' sake.
bennyboy Wrote:I think that's too simple. She took the philosophical position that empathy is a weakness of character, that decisions should be made purely rationally and without regard to human emotion. Specifically, she felt that capable people should maximize their capability in following their own great ambitions, without regard to those who might depend on her or be less capable.
All well and good, but I think you're aware she was calling objectivism a closed philosophy. Meaning, it's not open for debate. Of course I can subscribe to reason being my guide. I try to do that every day in my decision making. Following ones ambitions, fine by me. However personal freedom ends where others get hurt and I cannot subscribe to disregarding others, just because they seem to be less capable. By who's standards anyway? It would be a sociopaths world when everyone would subscribe to Rand's whole package. And that's what a closed philosophy means. Take it or leave it, but don't change it.
I remember her many times calling Objectivism a complete philosophy, but have no recollection of her calling it a closed philosophy or claiming that it isn't open for debate. But I'm getting old and my fascination with her work passed with my Twenties, so maybe I'm just not remembering her right.
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.
To me, it would be nice if benevolence was enough to cover what needs to be done, but it isn't, and taking care of people who need a hand up, a safety net, or whatever, is a long-term investment in a better future, not a waste.
robvalue Wrote: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.
