What's The Straight Dope on Objectivism?

[alterego]

I used to be roommates with a serious objectivist, and I even read The Fountainhead once upon a time (my first experience with a willing rape). I've read articles on the Internet, looked over Wikipedia, and talked to several objectivists. No matter what I try to say about it, they always seem adamant about the fact that I don't understand it. "No - that's really not what it's about."

I have heard it called adolescent. I have heard that the name "objectivism" has absolutely nothing to do with the word "objective." I have heard that serious philosophers consider it to be a joke. I have heard that its most widely used as an outlet for homosexuality. I have taken several philosophy classes and it has never come up. So finally, I am asking: What is up with this philosophy? What are its values? What is its take on morality? What do they think about existence? They do think there is an "objective" reality, right? What are the key facets of this philosophy, and just what do "serious" (academic, professional) philosophers actually think about it? Please - don't spin me around anymore. I want TSD!

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

It is an overblown excuse for selfishness, & a knee-jerk reaction to Communism.

It doesn't deserve your time. Ignore it.

[silenus]

...and just what do "serious" (academic, professional) philosophers actually think about it?

They don't. When somebody brings it up, they tell them to come back when they've grown up. Objectivism is Philosophy for 13 year olds, and not-very-bright ones at that.

[Richard Parker]

I'll outline it for you. Just listen to your radio starting at 3:00 pm EST and ending at 9:00 pm EST.

Or I can boil it down here:

A is A. You'd agree to that right? A=A. Very simple. Therefore... *hand-wavy* *hand-wavy* Greed is good. Not only is it good in a self-preservation-lifts-all-boats capitalism sort of way. It is good because altruism is bad. Altruism supports people who just drain wealth from the gifted and productive. So, be greedy.

[Anduril]

It is an overblown excuse for selfishness, & a knee-jerk reaction to Communism.

It doesn't deserve your time. Ignore it.

I have exactly the same appreciation of "objectivism". Glad to know I'm not the only one.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

None of these sound like GQ answers.

For the OP, I assume, of course, that you checked out Wikipedia's entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29). The primary nonfiction source for Objectivism is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306/sr=8-1/qid=1170097805/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5334436-9051145?ie=UTF8&s=books). The two largest organizations propounding Objectivism these days are the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer) and The Objectivist Center (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/).

[Bryan Ekers]

It is an overblown excuse for selfishness, & a knee-jerk reaction to Communism.
I'd suggest if an adolescent is going to fixate on an overblown pseudo-philosophy, better it be objectivism than communism. It makes the transition into adulthood easier.

[Richard Parker]

They do think there is an "objective" reality, right? What are the key facets of this philosophy, and just what do "serious" (academic, professional) philosophers actually think about it? Please - don't spin me around anymore. I want TSD!

In the spirit of a more "objective" GQ answer: one of the primary reasons philosophers and others deride objectivism is precisely because objectivists think there is an "objective" reality. That is, objectivism totally ignores the interpretive effects of consciousness, disregards without argument philosophical skepticism, and generally has a very unsophisticated view of metaphysics and epistemology that ignores nearly all of the philosophical history that preceded it. Now, you may disagree with nearly all of contemporary philosophy. That's fine. But to do so arrogantly and without any real argument means that your philosophy will receive the same treatment.

[John Mace]

It is an overblown excuse for selfishness, & a knee-jerk reaction to Communism.

It doesn't deserve your time. Ignore it.
Gee, I'm glad everyone is sticking to facts and not just giving opinions...

A is A. You'd agree to that right? A=A. Very simple. Therefore... *hand-wavy* *hand-wavy* Greed is good. Not only is it good in a self-preservation-lifts-all-boats capitalism sort of way. It is good because altruism is bad. Altruism supports people who just drain wealth from the gifted and productive. So, be greedy.
No, that's not quite right. Objectivism doesn't consider altruism, per se, to be bad. It considers selflessness to be bad. There's a difference. And of course "greed" and "selfishness" are not the same thing. Gordon Gekko wasn't an objectivist. ;)

[Tyrrell McAllister]

That is, objectivism totally ignores the interpretive effects of consciousness, disregards without argument philosophical skepticism... That is simply not true. Objectivists do not ignore these issues. They believe that they have arguments that address them. Whether those arguments are correct is, of course, a subject properly examined in GD.

It is a true that, as far as most professional Philosophers are concerned, where the arguments of Objectivism are convincing, they are not original, and where they are original, they are not convincing.

[Richard Parker]

That is simply not true. Objectivists do not ignore these issues. They believe that they have arguments that address them. Whether those arguments are correct is, of course, a subject properly examined in GD.

It is a true that, as far as most professional Philosophers are concerned, where the arguments of Objectivism are convincing, they are not original, and where they are original, they are not convincing.

Well, if you prefer, the objectivist reponse if not absent is at least shallow and often misconstrues the arguments it is responding to. I agree with your second paragraph, but I don't see that it is inconsistent with the specific things I wrote. I am unaware of an objectivist response to philosophical skepticism. What is it?

[John Mace]

I am unaware of an objectivist response to philosophical skepticism. What is it?
Perhaps they are skeptical of it. ;)

Maybe Liberal will pop into this thread-- I believe considers himself an objectivist and can probably best describe its arguments (even if he has his own brand of objetivism that he adheres to).

[Lemur866]

It is an overblown excuse for selfishness, & a knee-jerk reaction to Communism.

It doesn't deserve your time. Ignore it.
Well, was Ayn Rand's reaction to communism "knee-jerk"? She wasn't a John Birch Society xenophobe. She actually lived in the Soviet Union before escaping the the US. It is impossible to understand Ayn Rand's obsessions without understanding this. Almost all of her work can be considered a rejoinder to the collectivist propaganda she saw.

And the example of a nation turning itself into an impoverished dictatorship all while loudly singing the praises of collectivism and sacrifice for the greater good has got to sour anybody on altruism. The "knee-jerk" accusation is completely unfair.

That isn't to say that her actual philosophy or epistemology should or should not be taken seriously. Just that although Rand liked to imagine herself springing full grown from the brow of Zeus, the pyschological underpinnings of her formative years should be pretty obvious. And of course, she would despise anyone who attempted such an analysis. Read "We, The Living" for some semi-autobiographical insight. Of course, if you aren't interested in Ayn Rand to begin with, there's not much point in reading further.

[Strinka]

Wait...

I thought objectivism was just the belief that there are objective morals that apply universally to everyone, regardless of culture, etc.

So, while some objectivists might say "Communism is objectively bad" others might say "Communism is objectively good".


Or does objectivism refer to something more specific?

[John Mace]

Wait...

I thought objectivism was just the belief that there are objective morals that apply universally to everyone, regardless of culture, etc.

So, while some objectivists might say "Communism is objectively bad" others might say "Communism is objectively good".


Or does objectivism refer to something more specific?
Objectivism, capital "O", refers to philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. I would say that she thinks there are objective morals, but I think Objectivism isn't "just" that. Someone already linked to the wikipedia article, so you might want to read it.

Objectivism is a philosophy[1] developed by Ayn Rand that encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that humans gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement, and by forming concepts that correspond to natural categories by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest;" that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form - a work of art - that one can apprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness.

[WonJohnSoup]

The OP's got me genuinely curious. The wiki article isn't clear enough for me. Exactly on what grounds and points do philosophers dismiss her ideas on?

[Sam Stone]

In the spirit of a more "objective" GQ answer: one of the primary reasons philosophers and others deride objectivism is precisely because objectivists think there is an "objective" reality. That is, objectivism totally ignores the interpretive effects of consciousness, disregards without argument philosophical skepticism, and generally has a very unsophisticated view of metaphysics and epistemology that ignores nearly all of the philosophical history that preceded it. Now, you may disagree with nearly all of contemporary philosophy. That's fine. But to do so arrogantly and without any real argument means that your philosophy will receive the same treatment.

This is inaccurate. Objectivists believe that there is an objective reality which exists and has properties which universally exist. Our senses may be inadequate to see it, and our biases may distort our view of it, but that doesn't change its fundamental nature. It's the opposite of "it is whatever you think it is."

I happen to agree with Objectivists on this point. Where I think Rand goes off the rails is when she tries to take this fundamental axiom (which is by her own admission very old, and not original with her), and spin a whole intricate 'correct' belief system out of it, complete with descriptions of what art you must like and which kinds of books you would find most enjoyable. She's guilty of serious overreach.

This kind of overreach is usually the hallmark of an amateur - someone who knows a little about a subject, and with incomplete knowledge suddenly coming up with some grand unified scheme that ties everything together. The serious scholars delve into the difficult problems, while the amateurs skate around them in intricate patterns.

[Richard Parker]

This is inaccurate. Objectivists believe that there is an objective reality which exists and has properties which universally exist. Our senses may be inadequate to see it, and our biases may distort our view of it, but that doesn't change its fundamental nature. It's the opposite of "it is whatever you think it is."

I happen to agree with Objectivists on this point. Where I think Rand goes off the rails is when she tries to take this fundamental axiom (which is by her own admission very old, and not original with her), and spin a whole intricate 'correct' belief system out of it, complete with descriptions of what art you must like and which kinds of books you would find most enjoyable. She's guilty of serious overreach.

This kind of overreach is usually the hallmark of an amateur - someone who knows a little about a subject, and with incomplete knowledge suddenly coming up with some grand unified scheme that ties everything together. The serious scholars delve into the difficult problems, while the amateurs skate around them in intricate patterns.

Objectivist metaphysics may be as simple as you claim (and obviously not new or at all part of what earns it such derision), but I think Objectivist epistemology makes more radical and indefensible claims than you allow.

But on the whole, I agree with your post. She takes a very old position, adds nothing to its defense, and then uses to create all kinds of non-sequiters. Which is what I tried to summarize with my first post in this thread.

[Princhester]

I used to be roommates with a serious objectivist, and I even read The Fountainhead once upon a time (my first experience with a willing rape). [emphasis added]

Huh?

[John Mace]

[emphasis added]

Huh?
Roark rapes Dominique, but she really wanted him to do it.
It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the Reader's Digest version.

[Princhester]

But doesn't that mean...?

[Sage Rat]

Now, I've only read Atlas Shrugged but to go off of that, Ayn Rand's ideas were that:

There are good people, bad people, and people who just want to live. A free market system allows the good people to use their skills to amass wealth and hence hire the normal people and advance society. A Communist system, on the other hand, makes it more profitable to be needier or to have greater non-monetary influence (for instance, through force or intimidation) so it favors the bad people to lead the normal people--and they'll also tend to want to kill off the good people since they are their greatest threat.

So the Objectivist philosphy is that any system which allows good people to do good, is best for the masses. And that good people are people who are highly capable, knowledgeable, and approach any topic through analytical reasoning and with a high sense of morality--with the intention of bettering the world for the masses.

Now, I would say that Objectivity is closer to the real world than Communism (or Socialism) and also better than Liberalism which lacks the insistence on being moral and helpful, trusting simple economics to solve problems. But I also think it is too simple in it's categorizations of people, and particularly the trust that only good people will amass wealth.

Now going by game theory, free-market-like systems should favor honesty over time and select for it. But the real world of course always has illogical people and, of course, simple human hangups like nepotism and whatnot.

And of course, at heart, Objectivism is much more a political stance than a philosophy. Trying to extend it out as a philosophy is relatively silly, just as if you were to try and stretch Conservatism into being a philosophy or Liberalism.

[Odesio]

I have heard that its most widely used as an outlet for homosexuality.

Wow, where did that come from?

From the Ayn Rand Institute www.aynrand.org


Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
"You can't eat your cake and have it, too."
"Man is an end in himself."
"Give me liberty or give me death."


You're just going to have to read some Objectivist literature and come to your own conclusion. I think a lot of people do misinterpret her work, in particular when it comes to selfishness and altruism. Rand never spoke out against goodwill toward other men or charity nor did she say it was ok to pursue one's own interest at the expense of all others.


They don't. When somebody brings it up, they tell them to come back when they've grown up. Objectivism is Philosophy for 13 year olds, and not-very-bright ones at that.

I would certainly hope that anyone with a degree in philosophy was able to avoid the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

I thought objectivism was just the belief that there are objective morals that apply universally to everyone, regardless of culture, etc.

Moral objectivism is the belief that right and wrong are independent of human thought. In general there are at least five traits of a moral principle.

1. Prescriptivity: Moral principles must be of an action guiding nature set forth as imperatives or injunctions. ie. "Do no harm" or "Be kind to old people".

2. Universalizability: Moral principles apply to all who are in the relavantly similar situation.

3. Overridingness: Moral principles take precedence over other considerations including cultural, prudential, or asthetic.

4. Publicity: Moral principles must be public.

5. Practicability: Moral theory must be workable.

Marc

[Frylock]

and I even read The Fountainhead once upon a time (my first experience with a willing rape).

Is that something that happens in the book or something? A willing rape? I guess that would be, there's no expressed consent, but the victim in fact does not mind? Or something?

-FrL-

[JRDelirious]

The two parties in the "rape" are coming at it from such rational and objectively right motivations, that it makes the action itself rationally and objectively right and good :p Or something like that.

[drillrod]

To continue the minor hijack:

My take on the rape in The Fountainhead, even though it's been 10 years or more since I last read it:

Roark is a perfect Rand man: uncompromising and driven by his own inner drive and vision. Dominique has always believed that the world is corrupt and will destroy such men.
They are attracted to each other, but Dominique can't allow herself to be attracted to or love a man whom the world will destroy.
He takes her even though she absolutely does not consent to the act. She falls in love with him because of it. A woman like her can't be won, she must be taken. Or something like that. I was never too comfortable with it either.

That's the way I remember it, anyway.

[Sage Rat]

Eh, pretty much any book from the 50s has some sort of slightly "off" feeling sex scene. I wouldn't say that Rand's desire to be ravished is any different than anything you'll read in a modern day romance novel; it just won't be couched as philosophically meaningful.

[Frylock]

To continue the minor hijack:

My take on the rape in The Fountainhead, even though it's been 10 years or more since I last read it:

Roark is a perfect Rand man: uncompromising and driven by his own inner drive and vision. Dominique has always believed that the world is corrupt and will destroy such men.
They are attracted to each other, but Dominique can't allow herself to be attracted to or love a man whom the world will destroy.
He takes her even though she absolutely does not consent to the act. She falls in love with him because of it. A woman like her can't be won, she must be taken. Or something like that. I was never too comfortable with it either.

That's the way I remember it, anyway.

Is this the one being made into a movie with Angelina Jolie? Or is that Atlas Shrugged?

-FrL-

[Guinastasia]

The Fountainhead, despite it's goofy philosophy and such, was at least entertaining-Atlas Shrugged made me want to shoot myself.

One thing to keep in mind is that despite her crowing all the time about individualism, Ayn pretty much shunned and abused anyone who ever slightly disagreed with her.

Apparently, you were only able to be an individual if you were just like her.

[Captain Amazing]

Is this the one being made into a movie with Angelina Jolie? Or is that Atlas Shrugged?


That's Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was made into a movie in 1949, though, with Gary Cooper, Patricia Neil, and Robert Massey.

[Sage Rat]

Atlas Shrugged.

Angelina Jolie (http://photoscelebrites.online.fr/angelina-jolie/01/A_J_023.jpg) <-> Ayn Rand (http://www.homestead.com/rationalview/files/randpic.gif)

[Sage Rat]

One thing to keep in mind is that despite her crowing all the time about individualism, Ayn pretty much shunned and abused anyone who ever slightly disagreed with her.
Strong individualists tend to also be browbeaters (no cite), so that's probably more of a proof that she was than that she wasn't.

[ZomZom]

I think Ayn Rand speaks quite well for herself here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ7ZSzvVBGo).

[alterego]

Thanks, mangoldm.

[panache45]

So the Objectivist philosphy is that any system which allows good people to do good, is best for the masses. And that good people are people who are highly capable, knowledgeable, and approach any topic through analytical reasoning and with a high sense of morality--with the intention of bettering the world for the masses.
.
.
.
And of course, at heart, Objectivism is much more a political stance than a philosophy. Trying to extend it out as a philosophy is relatively silly, just as if you were to try and stretch Conservatism into being a philosophy or Liberalism.
Sorry, I can't let this slide.

1. The "intention" of capitalism is not "a better world for the masses." You seem to be implying that the "good" people should be left free to produce because of their service to humanity. This is the exact opposite of Rand's premise; this is the precise idea that is the basis for the plot of Atlas Shrugged. The "good" people (your phrase, not hers) don't owe anything to the "masses." That's precisely why they went on strike. (Respect for the rights of the producers actually does benefit the "masses," but that's not its justification.)

2. You chose to mention only Rand's political ideas, then criticized her because she only wrote of politics. She also wrote (and spoke) extensively of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and esthetics. Like it or not, that's philosophy.

One thing to keep in mind is that despite her crowing all the time about individualism, Ayn pretty much shunned and abused anyone who ever slightly disagreed with her.
As one of the people she eventually shunned (or, I'd say, excommunicated), I can honestly say it had nothing to do with individualism. It had everything to do with Rand being Rand.

[Odesio]

As far as philosophers not taking Objectivism seriously I'd have to disagree. Rand's essay about Rational Egoism, I think it's called "In Defense of Rational Egoism" was in my freshman philosophy book. My Ethics and Society textbook also had some Objectivist material. (Yes, I'm not confusing Objectivist and moral objectivism they had Rand's philosophy.)

Marc

[Frylock]

As far as philosophers not taking Objectivism seriously I'd have to disagree. Rand's essay about Rational Egoism, I think it's called "In Defense of Rational Egoism" was in my freshman philosophy book. My Ethics and Society textbook also had some Objectivist material. (Yes, I'm not confusing Objectivist and moral objectivism they had Rand's philosophy.)

Marc



It doesn't suprise me that some of her stuff is in Intro level texts. She does write provocative philosophy in a relatively clear style, and these are valuable traits for intro level readings. But to my knowledge, Objectivism is never discussed in any reputable philosophical journal.

I've just done a search on a database called "JSTOR" which archives several of those journals, and the search tends to confirm my impression. I did find mentions, but no discussion, of Rand's ideas.

I also know that I have heard certain philosophers being accused of being closet Objectivists. The point of my bringing this up is twofold: one, Objectivism is thought of as something you have to be "closeted" about and as something one can be "accused" of, and two, maybe, just maybe, there are serious philosophers who do take her ideas seriously, though they are apparently afraid to admit it.

In general, Philosophy types pride themselves on being both acutely critical and at the same time eagerly open to new or different ideas. That this attitude toward Objectivism exists may be interpreted in one of at least two ways. One: If even eagerly open minded types (or at least, types who want to appear to value eager open mindedness) who are nevertheless trained to be acutely critical find it appropriate to pretty literally scoff at Objectivism, maybe Objectivism really is scoffworthy. But, the other possibility is, I must admit, that Philosophy types have just dropped the ball when it comes to being eagerly open to new and different ideas, at least when it comes to this particular topic.

-FrL-

[Sage Rat]

Sorry, I can't let this slide.

1. The "intention" of capitalism is not "a better world for the masses." You seem to be implying that the "good" people should be left free to produce because of their service to humanity. This is the exact opposite of Rand's premise; this is the precise idea that is the basis for the plot of Atlas Shrugged. The "good" people (your phrase, not hers) don't owe anything to the "masses." That's precisely why they went on strike. (Respect for the rights of the producers actually does benefit the "masses," but that's not its justification.)
Did I ever say anything about being beholden to the masses? No, but you do need to be moral, to be a Randist, rather than a Liberalist. Not self-sacrificing, but still not an ass. You are supposed to be selfish, but at the same time that doesn't mean you should just cease caring about the world about you.

The Randist idea is that you should use your abilities, power, and influence firstly to keep yourself supported and happy. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a second part; and that is where you try to advance the world. Or as her example went, getting humanity to be able to make its own Sun.

Dagny is shown in very high light in the novel because she keeps working after things have already started going downhill, and because she keeps trying to keep things working. But of course there is a point where one just has to say, "The heck with it" and abandon this (i.e. the point at which she joins the strike.) Ayn Rand probably would have thought Dagny stuck around too long before giving up (though of course this was necessary for the novel), but I highly doubt that she thought Dagny wasn't living up to Objectivism.

Be moral so long as you can, but you are definitely priority number one.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Sage Rat, Rand would never say, as you did, that "good people are people who . . . approach any topic . . . with the intention of bettering the world for the masses." Rand believed that the best people seek to improve their own welfare. That is, they seek to improve the world that they live in for their own benefit. The benefit that this has for "the masses" is purely a corollary of this selfish behavior. For one thing, because the best and brightest live in the same world we live it, when they add value to the world for their benefit, they also add value for our benefit. When one of them builds a bridge to cross a river so that they can transport their own goods across it, we all benefit because we can all now transport our goods across it. Of course, we have to pay the owner for the privilege, but that is an option that didn't exist before. Hence, the builder, seeking his own benefit, made the world better for all of us. However, he had no moral duty to improve the world for all of us. He was not morally obligated, as you suggest, to act with that intention.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I think I can speak to the question of how professional philosophers view Rand (since I am a professional philosopher). By and large, they regard her (with justification) as a terrible philosopher. I made the mistake once of assigning an article of hers ("The Ethics of Emergencies," I think) in an ethics class (it was in the anthology I was using). With no exaggeration, I would give a C or D to any student who turned in such a bit of rubbish. It's not that her conclusions are necessarily wrong, it is that she is such a poor arguer that I must immediately suspect the intelligence of anyone who finds her arguments convincing. She liberally used strawmen (her characterization of the target of her attack, 'common-sense' morality, was so grotesque that it made me angry to read it), she would make stipulations and then rest argumentative weight on them, etc. etc. It was the worst piece of published philosophy I have ever read, and believe me, I have read some absolute festering tripe in my day. Nothing else I have read of hers has altered my opinion of her philosophical abilities one iota. Again, this doesn't mean that Objectivism as a philosophy is false; it just means that her arguments for her philosophical positions are beyond terrible. Rand is one of those authors who make me despair for the ability of the human race to use reason--I can only conclude that people who read Rand and become Objectivists embrace her conclusions based on a pre-existing inclination to think as she does, and then convince themselves on this basis that her arguments are good (which they are not).

[Sage Rat]

Woops, I just realised I've been saying Liberalism where I meant Libertarianism. Bah.

Sage Rat, Rand would never say, as you did, that "good people are people who . . . approach any topic . . . with the intention of bettering the world for the masses." Rand believed that the best people seek to improve their own welfare. That is, they seek to improve the world that they live in for their own benefit. The benefit that this has for "the masses" is purely a corollary of this selfish behavior.
It's possible that I've misread of course. But I suspect that to Ayn Rand, she considered saying, "But don't be an ass" to be too obvious that she never said it clearly. Plus she was arguing against altruism. It's hard to say "Don't be altruistic, but care about people" in a way that isn't wishy-washy.

Well, here to break it down into a sort of logic pyramid:

1) Capitalism rewards you for the honest work you did, in a directly linear respect to how much work you did.
2) One person, in Capitalism, can earn more money than any other 10 because he can improve the abilities of others enough to make his value worth that of any ten workers.
3) The lower paid workers are, however, also doing honest work. And so must honestly be paid a value equal to the work they did. To do otherwise would be unethical.
4) Anyone who does do honest work, is not a "bad person."
5) Since the primary method by which value as a worker is assigned is to how much value you add to society, only by advancing society can you make money.
6) Since the greatest way to advance society is to advance the abilities of the rest of society (i.e. to increase productivity), the more you benefit the rest of society, the more money you earn.
7) And since the primary goal is to do well for yourself, the most moral thing you can do in life is to aid those who are honest in doing honest work, and do it better than they could have without you.

Her argument against Libertarianism is that it is a mix of her ideas with anarchism. In an anarchic system, the freedom of the individual are held as supreme. But of course that's fundamentally self-defeating as people have to live among others, and work with others to achieve advancement. As a quick and dirty, "Leave me alone to do my thing" in regards to the government, the Libertarian and Objectivist ideas might come to the same proscription, but in the long run, Objectivism assumes that you will be working with other people in an honest fashion as that's the most profitable to yourself, not freedom.

Not Rand, but here's a FAQ from an Objectivist site (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=406&h=42):
Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.

Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.

To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. (For the Objectivist view of benevolence and its component virtues—civility, sensitivity, and generosity—see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence).

[ZomZom]

It's not that her conclusions are necessarily wrong, it is that she is such a poor arguer that I must immediately suspect the intelligence of anyone who finds her arguments convincing.
Would you give an example of such a poor argument?

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Would you give an example of such a poor argument?
It's been years, but I'll try. One that I particularly recall was based on her caricature of common-sense morality. According to her, common-sense morality claims that every self-interested act is evil, and that the only act that has any worth (according to common-sense morality) is an act in which one's own self interest is ignored (or, better, sacrificed) for the interest of another. Thus, common-sense morality makes morality your mortal enemy, is opposed to the values of life and self-preservation, and should be abandoned in favor of rational egoism. The problem with this argument, of course, is that her characterization of common sense morality is total bullshit, a strawman invented to give her argument traction. Real common sense morality (as opposed to her made-up version) would not say (for example) that you are morally obligated to rush into a burning house and die if by doing so you could save the life of a stranger. But this is what she is accusing common sense morality of claiming. Of course, if common-sense morality said that, it should be abandoned. But it doesn't say that (and even if it did, rational egoism would not be the only alternative). So her argument sucks, and sucks in a way that makes me question her honesty and integrity as a philosopher: she had to know that she was setting up a strawman; she just didn't care.

[panache45]

It's been years, but I'll try. One that I particularly recall was based on her caricature of common-sense morality. According to her, common-sense morality claims that every self-interested act is evil, and that the only act that has any worth (according to common-sense morality) is an act in which one's own self interest is ignored (or, better, sacrificed) for the interest of another. Thus, common-sense morality makes morality your mortal enemy, is opposed to the values of life and self-preservation, and should be abandoned in favor of rational egoism. The problem with this argument, of course, is that her characterization of common sense morality is total bullshit, a strawman invented to give her argument traction. Real common sense morality (as opposed to her made-up version) would not say (for example) that you are morally obligated to rush into a burning house and die if by doing so you could save the life of a stranger. But this is what she is accusing common sense morality of claiming. Of course, if common-sense morality said that, it should be abandoned. But it doesn't say that (and even if it did, rational egoism would not be the only alternative). So her argument sucks, and sucks in a way that makes me question her honesty and integrity as a philosopher: she had to know that she was setting up a strawman; she just didn't care.
I seriously doubt that Rand would refer to altruism as "common-sense" morality; she'd be more likely to characterize her own morality as "common-sense."

Be that as it may, I wouldn't consider this a strawman argument at all. Most people would consider this sacrifice to be noble and heroic, the epitome of their ethical system. Not that such an action would necessarily be a "moral obligation," but even better, an act of self-sacrifice that was chosen. And if he actually lost his life in that act, he'd practically be granted sainthood. Hardly what I'd call a strawman.

[Grossbottom]

The Straight Dope on Objectivism is that it is a "philosophy" where none of its adherents is actually capable of its complete comprehension, and to which no one capable of its complete comprehension would ever adhere.

[Frylock]

I seriously doubt that Rand would refer to altruism as "common-sense" morality; she'd be more likely to characterize her own morality as "common-sense."

Be that as it may, I wouldn't consider this a strawman argument at all. Most people would consider this sacrifice to be noble and heroic, the epitome of their ethical system. Not that such an action would necessarily be a "moral obligation," but even better, an act of self-sacrifice that was chosen. And if he actually lost his life in that act, he'd practically be granted sainthood. Hardly what I'd call a strawman.

That's just the thing. Almost everyone would admire such a person, but almost no one would say that person was obligated to do what she did. There's a strong distinction between these two attitudes. Apparently, Rand claimed that most people would say that person was obligated to sacrifice herself. If she did make that claim, she was incorrect.

Presumably, from what I've gathered from this thread, even an Objectivist can consistently admire a self-sacrificing act, if self-sacrifice was in some sense in one's own interest. (Survival isn't the only interest. That's what I'd say, anyway, and I don't get the impression Rand would disagree.) If I'm right, if the Objectivist can admire the burning building runner just as I (an Altruist) can, and if her argument has been reported accurately, then I think its right to say her argument as described is a pretty bad one.

-FrL-

[panache45]

No, Rand would not admire someone risking his own life in order to save a total stranger. That act would totally disgust her. She would, however, consider it heroic to risk one's life to save the life of a loved one. To Rand, virtue is the act of acquiring and protecting one's values, and one can value another human being to the point of not wanting to live without them. If life without that person would be unbearable, risking one's own life wouldn't be a sacrifice. Not to attempt to save them would be unthinkable to her.

To Rand, there are no unchosen obligations. If you choose to love and value a person, then you should act accordingly. But to choose to value the life of a random stranger above one's own life . . . she would call that an unspeakable evil.

[Frylock]

No, Rand would not admire someone risking his own life in order to save a total stranger. That act would totally disgust her. She would, however, consider it heroic to risk one's life to save the life of a loved one. To Rand, virtue is the act of acquiring and protecting one's values, and one can value another human being to the point of not wanting to live without them. If life without that person would be unbearable, risking one's own life wouldn't be a sacrifice. Not to attempt to save them would be unthinkable to her.

To Rand, there are no unchosen obligations. If you choose to love and value a person, then you should act accordingly. But to choose to value the life of a random stranger above one's own life . . . she would call that an unspeakable evil.

If this is a correct interpretation of Rand, then its interesting, because its in line with a thread in contemporary ethics which ties moral obligation to commitments like the one you describe. No names come to mind but I think there was an article called "The Ethics of Care" in which the basic idea was put forth. To my recollection, this view in ethics is often associated with feminism.

-FrL-

[John Mace]

No, Rand would not admire someone risking his own life in order to save a total stranger. That act would totally disgust her. She would, however, consider it heroic to risk one's life to save the life of a loved one. To Rand, virtue is the act of acquiring and protecting one's values, and one can value another human being to the point of not wanting to live without them. If life without that person would be unbearable, risking one's own life wouldn't be a sacrifice. Not to attempt to save them would be unthinkable to her.

To Rand, there are no unchosen obligations. If you choose to love and value a person, then you should act accordingly. But to choose to value the life of a random stranger above one's own life . . . she would call that an unspeakable evil.
Perhaps a nitpick, but... I don't believe Rand would consider that act in and of itself to be unspeakably evil-- she would simply consider it to be morally wrong (since her morality is one of self interest). What she would consider unspeakably evil would be someone teaching that the highest moral goal is selflessness and that the best way to demonstrate that selflessness would be to give one's life for a person who was of no value to you.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I seriously doubt that Rand would refer to altruism as "common-sense" morality; she'd be more likely to characterize her own morality as "common-sense."

Be that as it may, I wouldn't consider this a strawman argument at all. Most people would consider this sacrifice to be noble and heroic, the epitome of their ethical system. Not that such an action would necessarily be a "moral obligation," but even better, an act of self-sacrifice that was chosen. And if he actually lost his life in that act, he'd practically be granted sainthood. Hardly what I'd call a strawman.
Well, she didn't use the phrase "common-sense morality"; I can't remember what phrase she used. But her alleged target was the morality that was accepted by most people, and I think she badly mischaracterizes such morality.

To give another example, IIRC, she claims that according to the common morality any action performed purely for one's own benefit is evil. But virtually noone really believes this; it is not an element of common morality. She would have us believe that if I have a night alone, and I decide to go to the video store and rent a DVD and watch it by myself purely for my own enjoyment, the morality subscribed to by the majority of people would condemn this action as wicked. Of course you might find some nutbags in professional philosophy who would think this (e.g., Peter Singer is probably committed to this by his theoretical commitments), but to claim that this is an element of our common morality is the worst kind of strawman.

[Sam Stone]

That's correct. Another example she put forward in one of the interviews linked here would be funding education for mentally handicapped children at the expense of funding education for the gifted. Funding education for mentally handicapped kids is fine, so long as it isn't your primary value. But taking funding away from something that represents your highest values to give it to someone needy is to her, evil.

Rand is perhaps one of the most misunderstood writers around, mainly because her belief system is both hard to grasp and polarizing, so her enemies misrepresent her or hate her without understanding, and her friends buy what she syas without getting the gist of the underlying philosophy.

I've known 'objectivists' who think that Rand taught them to be selfish - to disdain others, to ignore the needs of anyone but themselves. But Rand hated hedonists, and it's clear that her rational egoism is much more complex than, "me me me me". On the other hand, I've known opponents of Rand who think the same thing - that what she represents pure selfishness of the, "kick the smaller guy off the curb, I'm walking here" variety.

Rand believed in using reason to understand the world, and that 'proper' values champion the virtue of reason and the right of individuals to act on their own behalf and not be obligated by force to help others.

And altruism is not synonymous with charity. Rand had no problem with charity. In Atlas Shrugged, Galt's Gulch was full of charity cases, in a sense. For example, if there's a writer who's work you value, and that writer needs surgery and couldn't afford it, Rand would have no problem helping that writer. The act is not altruistic, because you are extending your own values by supporting someone who creates things you admire and want to be in the world. On the other hand, if a writer who representing everything Rand hated needed surgery, she would consider it evil to take money from things she valued and give it to the writer, simply because he 'needed' it more.

Altruism is the underlying philisophy of government social welfare - the notion that you must work a certain percentage of your life and give the proceeds to someone else, simply because a third party has decided that they are needy and therefore you must supply their needs. Rand was deeply offended by a tax system that would take money away from you that you wanted to use for your own child's education, because someone decided that another person needed your money more. And then perhaps the government would give a grant or subsidy to your child for school, taking the money from yet another person against their will.

The flip side of this is that Rand would never demand that someone else had an obligation to help her. To use force to take what you want from others is every bit as evil, and is just the other side of the same coin.

BTW, if you watch the Donaghue interview, listen to her ideas about what to do about the middle east - it shows where Rand could go horribly wrong, and where her dogmatic thinking could take her right off the rails. Her opinion was that since the people in the middle east could not develop their oil on their own, they had no ownership rights to it, and therefore the U.S. should just walk in and take it all. She claims that all the development effort the west put into building the oil infrastructure gave them the moral authority to just take the oil. Not only is that boneheaded thinking, it's actually the antithesis of what she claims to believe.

But she got stuck on one small aspect of the situation (that the people in the Middle East are irrational and incapable of acting on their own, and being 'subsidized' by the rational), and missed everything else about the situation (such that the oil infrastructure was built on contracts and agreements between interested parties, for mutual benefit. And that the middle eastern people COULD build their oil infrastructure - by contracting it out to others for fair value. Which they did).

[Gorsnak]

Well, she didn't use the phrase "common-sense morality"; I can't remember what phrase she used. But her alleged target was the morality that was accepted by most people, and I think she badly mischaracterizes such morality.
"Ethics of altruism" is the phrase you're looking for. And you're right, her entire argument for ethical egoism is to pose a ridiculous strawman and then commit an excluded middle fallacy by asserting that her view is the only alternative.

Here's a few quotes from a short essay called "The Virtue of Selfishness" that appears in one of my intro philosophy anthologies.

The ethics of altruism has created the image of a brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be...
Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judgments today. An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their own "selfish" benefit. A young man who gives up his career in order to support his parents and never rises beyond the rank of grocery clerk is regarded as morally superior to the young man who endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his personal ambition. A dictator is regarded as moral, since the unspeakable atrocities he committed were intended to benefit "the people," not himself.
altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man....altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites - that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men"
"Ethics of Emergencies" is in some ways even worse. She argues (I use the term loosely) that it's morally permissible to help others (aside from people you value, that is) in emergencies, but not in "metaphysically normal" circumstances. So if someone is poor and starving to death as a result of the poverty, you shouldn't help him because that's an ordinary part of the human condition, but if he's shipwrecked and drowning you can pull him from the water because that's not a "metaphysically normal" state.

Rand is scoff-worthy. Ethical egoism itself isn't scoffed at by philosophers, as there are arguments to be made for it and various people have argued coherently and more or less compellingly for it. But Rand? Rand couldn't tell a sound argument from her left elbow.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

The ethics of altruism has created the image of a brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be
This is exactly the type of thing I was thinking of. It is such a brazen strawman. Like I said, the obviousness of it raises two concerns for me. The first is about Rand's integrity: though a bad philosopher, she was by no means stupid, and so I question the integrity of anyone who would advance such an argument. If she really did think this, then this shows she was a dogmatist whose rigidity prevented any type of critical thinking when applied to her own writings.

The second is that it should be obvious to any reader that this is a strawman. But so many laypersons claim to find Rand convincing. How can an intelligent person be convinced by such a weak argument? I am a philosopher, and committed to the idea that ordinary people can use critical thinking to come to reasoned conclusions about important issues, if only they apply themselves; and people convinced by Rand's philosophical writings really make me despair sometimes.

[Sage Rat]

if someone is poor and starving to death as a result of the poverty, you shouldn't help him because that's an ordinary part of the human condition, but if he's shipwrecked and drowning you can pull him from the water because that's not a "metaphysically normal" state.
Your example is implicitly self-contradictory. Being poor may be a result of misfortune, or it might be because of laziness. You're assuming the former, and assuming that such is what she would be referring to. That's pretty doubtful.

Misfortune resulting in poverty is no different from misfortune resuting in being shipwrecked.

Now true, she might have been blissfully unaware that people can go broke due to simple bad luck, and so gave an example where she assumed herself to only be talking about lazy people. But the example of being shipwrecked clearly shows that helping someone due to bad luck is fine.

[ZomZom]

Trying to avoid GD territory...

It seems pretty clear to me that what Rand is responding to here is the altruists' own straw-man, that of the selfish brute clawing his way over the corpses of those blocking the path to his goals.

And, certainly, arguments in favor of a self-interested philosophy are commonly met with protests that man will surely degenerate into a murderous greed-monger without God or government to keep him in check.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Trying to avoid GD territory...

It seems pretty clear to me that what Rand is responding to here is the altruists' own straw-man, that of the selfish brute clawing his way over the corpses of those blocking the path to his goals.

And, certainly, arguments in favor of a self-interested philosophy are commonly met with protests that man will surely degenerate into a murderous greed-monger without God or government to keep him in check.
Mebbe. But that doesn't make her own arguments any better. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two strawmen don't make...uh...something good.

[FriarTed]

Gee, I'm glad everyone is sticking to facts and not just giving opinions...


No, that's not quite right. Objectivism doesn't consider altruism, per se, to be bad. It considers selflessness to be bad. There's a difference. And of course "greed" and "selfishness" are not the same thing. Gordon Gekko wasn't an objectivist. ;)

Ayn Rand did indeed condemn "altruism", defining it as "selflessness". She did not condemn charitableness or benevolence, however.

[Lemur866]

Well, of course nowadays Rand's portait of "the ethics of altruism" seems a bit of a straw man. But think back to the period she was formed by. The communists REALLY DID equate the industrialist and the gangster. People really did disdain commerce. There really was a fascist ideology, a socialist ideology, a communist ideology, and it really did exhalt the collective and the sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group.

And communism wasn't just an ideology that was followed in Soviet Russia, lots of people all over the world found it appealing. "Of course, I don't agree with everything Stalin did, but you have to admit, blah, blah, blah." Once upon a time people took communist ideology seriously even if they didn't agree with it, there used to be real life ideological communists and fascists. Nowadays we dismiss such people as raving lunatics or sophists, but they were a lot harder to dismiss in the 30s and 40s and even the 50s.

[Weirddave]

To give another example, IIRC, she claims that according to the common morality any action performed purely for one's own benefit is evil. But virtually noone really believes this; it is not an element of common morality.
Uh....do you read these boards much? I would call that a fair characterization of the philosophical beliefs of the majority of Dopers. Not all of them, no, and the SDMB isn't society at large, thank the thousand little Gods, but that's the prevailing attitude here, at least in most political threads.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Uh....do you read these boards much? I would call that a fair characterization of the philosophical beliefs of the majority of Dopers. Not all of them, no, and the SDMB isn't society at large, thank the thousand little Gods, but that's the prevailing attitude here, at least in most political threads.
Are you serious? I don't recall ever seeing a doper espouse that position. Can you cite an example of someone claiming that any action performed purely for one's own benefit is evil? You will find people who claim it is evil if it is at the expense of others, but I doubt anyone would argue that any action purely motivated one's own benefit is evil, no matter how it affects others. Even Kant (whom Rand thought was the greatest source of evil in all history) didn't argue that. He merely argued that such actions couldn't be moral, which is different from arguing that they are immoral.

[Auntbeast]

She does invoke rabid behavior both pro and con.

I've watched a couple of the clips from Donahue and have read Atlas Shrugged and have suggested it to others. I do think she is rather "pound you over the head repeatedly" in her beliefs and while I think that her characters are cardboard cut-outs of who real people are, I find comfort in the concept that being good at what you do and being rewarded for it is ok. That you can choose to live your life enthusiastic about your achievements, passionate about your successes and diligent with your failures. We live in a world where if you tell a woman she is beautiful, she will point out her flaws. That there is no "I in Team." Heck, there is even a poster for it. I'm very thin, too thin actually and my mother in law said to me "I hate you, you are so thin." I like to think I live in a world where my response could have been "Fuck you, lay off the wine." But we don't. I work with a girl that has a tremendous body, she works out diligently, she can not appreciate what she has accomplished and only sees where she fails. The best, fastest dealer we have is not appreciated by our management or rewarded in any way, she is treated exactly the same as the worst dealer. Mothers are expected to give up their lives and interests in favor of their childrens, read any thread here, you will see it.

I take her philosophy to encourage me to be the best at whatever it is I do. To be able to celebrate in a way that is healthy. To look at my healthy child and say "I made that!" with the knowledge that I did and the pride in the effort it took to do so.

I watch the show Heroes. My favorite character is Hiro, not because he's the funny one, but because he is the only one on the show that has a tremendous gift and is excited about it. He isn't asking that it be taken away, he embraces it. Embracing the good in you and in myself, knowing that the street sweeper that is the best street sweeper in the world can hold his head up to anyone else in the world and have personal value.

She can be a complete blockhead, but I read her and it gives me hope that there will never again be a company that will purchase, frame and laud the statement "There is no I in Team."

[Weirddave]

Are you serious? I don't recall ever seeing a doper espouse that position. Can you cite an example of someone claiming that any action performed purely for one's own benefit is evil? You will find people who claim it is evil if it is at the expense of others, but I doubt anyone would argue that any action purely motivated one's own benefit is evil, no matter how it affects others. Even Kant (whom Rand thought was the greatest source of evil in all history) didn't argue that. He merely argued that such actions couldn't be moral, which is different from arguing that they are immoral.
If you are asking for a link to a philosophical debate where someone took that exact position then no, I can not provide such a link.

However, if you don't have to read very many political threads before you become aware of a virulent leftest presence on these boards whose attitude is exactly that: Anyone who is rich or successful is by virtue of that fact evil and that society should be encouraged to take from them what they have earned and give it to those it deems "less fortunate". They are textbook examples of what Rand means by an "Altruist".

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Uh....do you read these boards much? I would call that a fair characterization of the philosophical beliefs of the majority of Dopers. Not all of them, no, and the SDMB isn't society at large, thank the thousand little Gods, but that's the prevailing attitude here, at least in most political threads.
I gave an example in an earlier post: suppose I have a night to myself, decide to go rent a DVD, and go back to my apartment and watch it alone. This is an action performed purely to benefit myself. According to the Rand quote cited by Gorsnak, this action would be regarded by most people in society (subscribing as they do to the ethics of altruism) as evil. But that is absurd. I doubt if you would find more than a radical fringe of people who would characterize this action as evil. Barring Peter Singer, I also don't know of any system of philosophical ethics that would characterize this action as evil, either. Virtually nobody thinks this way. And so I stand by my characterization of Rand's arguments as involving strawmen.

It's hard to avoid a debate on this (even though we are in GQ, not GD), but the nature of some of the questions (e.g., what do professional philosophers think of Rand) asked in the OP can't really be answered without providing opinions and arguments. So I guess that is by way of an apology/explanation for having argumentative posts.

[Measure for Measure]

Crank.net (http://www.crank.net/index.html) has a listing for the Ayn Rand institute: look under philosophy (http://www.crank.net/philosophy.html), metaphysics (http://www.crank.net/metaphysics.html), or megalomaniacs (http://www.crank.net/megalomaniacs.html).

Crank.net separates their candidates into the following categories: fringe, cranky, crankier, crankiest and illucid. The Ayn Rand institute is... "fringe".

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does not mention Ayn Rand.

Critics of fiction note that Ayn Rand beats the reader over the head with the most contrived cardboard characters, but grant that her work may have some philosophical value. Philosophers note that she uses straw-man arguments, but demure in judging Rand's literary qualities. Neither will inveigh upon her economics.

Economists note that any argument for libertarianism better have at least a passing notion of market failure. But maybe Rand's work has some philosophical or literary merit.

[alterego]

I don't usually click on adverts, but the one that says "Dr. Seuss meets Ayn Rand" was just too much!

"This book is a cross between Dr. Seuss and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged," writes the publisher. Younger children will enjoy the rhyming verse and beautiful, full-color illustrations on every page, while older children and adults will enjoy the strong message that speaks in favor of free markets and against excessive government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxation."

[yabob]

I don't usually click on adverts, but the one that says "Dr. Seuss meets Ayn Rand" was just too much!

"This book is a cross between Dr. Seuss and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged," writes the publisher. Younger children will enjoy the rhyming verse and beautiful, full-color illustrations on every page, while older children and adults will enjoy the strong message that speaks in favor of free markets and against excessive government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxation."
Bleh. Based on the sample, at least, the verse doesn't scan very well.

I also see a Google ad down there for an "Ayn Rand Dating Service". The only reason THAT isn't a horrifying thought is that, for Randites, I imagine that sex is likely to consist of spouting monologues at each other, ala Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart. Unlikely to produce little Randites.