Moral defenses for self interest have always been around. Hers was more than a mere defense of self interest.
Nothing in Christianity tells you you have to care for your neighbor MORE than you do yourself. While Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, it is not a sin to KILL someone in self defense. There are some goods that should be distributed according to ability to pay (fancy cars and flat scren tvs,etc) but as a society we have decided that there are some goods that we all deserve regardless of our ability to pay. Education is one of them and health care is quickly becoming another.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy allows me to take the position that taxing me to pay for the education nof poor children is theft as surely as if their parents stole the money from me and enrolled thyeir children in private school. Or am I mistaken about the idea that Ayn Rand basically condemns all taxes beyond what is required for national security?
I think Ayn Rand’s work is successful because it give people who are inclined to be greedy and selfish a philosophical morality that doesn’t make them look quite as morally bankrupt as they are.
There is a big difference between serving money (as your god) and letting money serve you as your tool.
And yet Christianity has survived 2000 years while marxism didn’t even make it 50 years. Don’t you think that there might be basic underlying differnces between the two? A difference that Rand seems ot recgnize but then dismiss.
But see, you just kind of proved my point (or at least added another data point in favor of it). You stated that you support United Way because on the whole, you think your donations are being put to good use, even though some of the money might go to things you don’t support. Would you still support them if ALL the money went to things you didn’t support (or actively opposed)? You give because you value giving, and you value (some subset of) the causes that UW supports. Do you do it because you feel you have to, or because you choose to? That’s the crux of the thing, in my mind.
So when you are taxed to pay for someone elses child to get educated, is the government stealing from you? What if they tax you and every single one of those dollars goes towards educating your own children but you do not get the choice of raising your children in ignorance. Has the government stolen from you then as well by robbing you of the choice to raise your children in ignorance?
But who is truly the most selfish and greedy - those who merely want to keep what they’ve earned, or those who insist that money be taken from those people by force and spent on their own wants and needs instead?
Winterhawk — I guess the difference is that I do not believe for a second that I know it all. I do not believe that my interests should always win the day simply because they are my interests and beliefs. I accept that I live in a society with 300 million others and I believe their is a collective interest and a collective good that goes beyond my own selfish good or even the individual selfish good of each of those 300 million.
Ethics although I wouldn’t label it a pseudo philosophy. I wouldn’t label Objectivism a pseudo philosophy either.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider Objectivism a philosophy for smart people? Most of the Rand fans (as well as detractors) I’ve met don’t really understand her stuff, at all. As I said in an earlier post, most people just take away greed is good from her works. Obviously, this is incorrect but if a philosophy attracts people who aren’t capable of basic reading comprehension, is it really something for smart people?
I used to work in a bookstore. One day, I was helping a customer when someone, Wall Street Journal in hand, interrupted us, apparently the idea of waiting in line wasn’t his bag. He asked for the business section. I pointed to it. He walked off and I started helping another customer. Guy comes back, annoyed with me. Interrrupts the person I’m helping with “I can’t find the book I want.” I told him that I was helping someone and I would be with him as soon as I was done. He ignores this and asks for Atlas Shrugged. I tell him it’s in fiction under R for Rand. He tells me it’s a business book. I tell him it’s in fiction and that I can help him after I’m done with the customer I was already helping. He stalks off in the direction of fiction. I finish with the customer and go look the guy. Find him in fiction where he says “You don’t have it, why don’t you have it?” whereupon I let him know we don’t keep Atlas Shrugged under the L section but we can find it under the R’s.
Partly it’s because Rand devotees are so, well, devoted. It seems more like a weird cult than a political philosophy, an impression that is bolstered by the Randian penchant for couching philosophical ideas in moral terms.
It is very offputting to have to fend off these cultish followers of Rand all the time.
I supect that if immoral people used Dan Browns work to justify their immorality, people would have problems with Dan Brown as well even if Dan brown never said anything that was actually immoral.
I don’t believe I know it all either–nor, do I think, did Rand (although she did come off that way sometimes! ) What a lot of people don’t seem to realize, though, is that Rand was not anti-society. She doesn’t advocate a series of little human islands all wrapped up in their own selves to the detriment of everyone else. She merely says that the most moral and rational way to live is to practice rational self-interest–note that word “rational,” it’s very important. When rational people work to advance their own interests and those interests come into conflict, the only rational thing to do is work it out, compromise in a way that benefits all sides. That might mean that someone might have to give up something of what they want–but again, it comes back to values. If the person values living in a functioning society more than he does having all of his creature comforts, then it’s rational to give up some comforts or desires in order to make the society work. Rand didn’t approve of hedonism any more than she approved of collectivism. Her ideal relationship between people was that of the trader: each side honorably and fairly trying to advance his own interests while meanwhile making compromises in favor of the other person’s interests until the two come to a mutually desirable agreement. It’s really no different in principle than bargaining, which isn’t an immoral act.
A rational person may not but a rational society very well may. I will bring up the example of education once again.
A rational society may decide that educating all children regardless of ability to pay is beneficial to society. My next door neighbor on the other hand thinks that our police protection should be directly proportional to his real estate taxes and thinks that the state is stealing his money to educate poor kids.
So is our society immoral for forcing my neighbor to pay real estate taxes for educating someone else’s children or is my next door neighbor just being incredibly selfish and using Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” as jsutification for his selfishness?
You gave a solid explanation Winterhawk. the only problem is that the way Rand wants society to work is not the way it works at all. There are far larger and more powerful influences in our lives than others just like us. Its not at all about one trader sitting down with another equal trader. Not by any stretch of the imagination is it anywhere near that. And even if it was, how can I possibly ever get to the point where I know enough to handle each of those situations on my own as an individual.
It has been my experience that Ayn Rand, her followers and the political ideology of libertarianism that leans upon her live in some other world than the real one I live in.
Well, now you get into an area where Rand and I disagree–she believed that the only proper function of government is to provide things like national defense, courts, and police services. While I am in favor of limited government and don’t support a lot of the things the American government does, I do believe that it’s in our best interests as a society to provide at least basic education for all children. My rationale for that is that educated children will grow up to be productive members of society and that’s in everyone’s best interest. Rand would argue that children should be educated privately (through private schools, with charity taking up the slack for those who couldn’t afford it) but I believe that in a society as big as ours, that’s somewhat impractical. Again, my disagreements with Rand usually come in the areas of things that might work in an ideal Rand-approved world, but don’t work in the real world any more than collectivism does.
She may have stated things differently outside of Atlas Shrugged but my exposure to Ayn Rand is limited to Atalas Shrugged and IIRC that is pretty close to the position she expressed in John Galt’s broadcast.
A friend recently finished Atlas Shrugged and has encouraged me to read it too. I appreciate your question and I’m inspired to read it myself now, mainly due to the naysayers in this thread - it gets my back up when I read snappy one liners instead of answers to a sincere question. Thanks.
John Galt’s philosophy is immoral, especially the way it is being used by folks these days.
If everyone who quoted Rand decided to give up everything they owned and drop out of society to free themselves from the social contract then I guess I would have to respect that. Really, they should try it, maybe we will all beg them to come back and be our masters. Somehow I think that the world will be able to eke its way forward without them.
) What a lot of people don’t seem to realize, though, is that Rand was not anti-society. She doesn’t advocate a series of little human islands all wrapped up in their own selves to the detriment of everyone else. She merely says that the most moral and rational way to live is to practice rational self-interest–note that word “rational,” it’s very important. When rational people work to advance their own interests and those interests come into conflict, the only rational thing to do is work it out, compromise in a way that benefits all sides. That might mean that someone might have to give up something of what they want–but again, it comes back to values. If the person values living in a functioning society more than he does having all of his creature comforts, then it’s rational to give up some comforts or desires in order to make the society work. Rand didn’t approve of hedonism any more than she approved of collectivism. Her ideal relationship between people was that of the trader: each side honorably and fairly trying to advance his own interests while meanwhile making compromises in favor of the other person’s interests until the two come to a mutually desirable agreement. It’s really no different in principle than bargaining, which isn’t an immoral act.