Ayn Rand for Dummies

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

OK. Admitting an error is not all that common around here. I commend you for that.

But… can you tell us why you think she is immoral? Immoral in what way based on what morality? If you tell me you’re a Christian, then I can see where you would think she was immoral. If you tell me you’re a socialist, then I can see it, too. But there are many flavors of morality out there, and I’ve seen a lot of straw men sent up in this thread about Rand thinks this and Rand thinks that, when she simply doesn’t.

Too many equate putting your own interests paramount with actively screwing other people. That is plain wrong.

I find admission of error more common here than almost any other board in the universe, its kind of what makes this board so good, people get doped. Seriously, people will defend 2+2=5 on other boards to avoid admitting they are wrong.

Well I’m not a philosopher of anything but I have a Christian background and I really like what Rawls had to say. Most of my focus is on John Galt’s speech. Aside from the repetitive rambling, she doesn’t really say anything new or earthshattering except provide the worst of us a morality where we can be as avaricioous as we want.

A=A? Is that supposed to be news to anyone? This is not earthshattering or new but… “the greatest morality is to be as selfish as possible” Now THAT is something new, something that can be used by folks who would previously have been condemned as immoral can use to argue for their own moral high ground.

I find it especially distasteful in the context of taxes.

[flonks]

@John_Mace

No, you do not. Unless you have a cite that proves you do…?

My statement was preceded by “Debatable. It’s not IMO”. Do you need a cite for my opinion?

@A.Selene

Is reading comprehension on the decline? To clarify: I’m surprised that on the SD, people show so much contempt for Rand’s ideas. I would imagine a meeting place of people professed to be open minded could debate in good faith about something they disagree with, without showing disdain for those that do agree with some of what she wrote.

Depends on what you disagree with. If you think that people use “philosophy” to justify being selfish jerks, that might be different than disagreeing with, let’s say, on the latest Eminem video clip.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Even France and Germany aren’t the sort of disasters you might expect given your premise (they are about $1000-$2000 below the US)

Again : not if you account for longer working hours in the US. If you do, per hour productivity is higher in France than in the US (see my cites above).

[spazattak]

@panache45

I’ve missed a lot of this thread, and I’m not enough of a masochist to get caught up. So here are Rand’s own words about sacrifice (from Galt’s speech):

*”Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t. . . . If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself — that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
*

So not only does Rand not understand the meaning of the word ‘objective’ as pointed out earlier, but apparently she also doesn’t understand the word ‘sacrifice’. Even by her own definition, giving up milk is sacrifice. Period. No one has to starve at either end for it to become one (sacrifice). You are sacrificing something you value (the milk and the nutrition it provides) for something you don’t (nothing). Now you could argue that value you are getting is the satisfaction of providing for someone else I suppose… but at that point you define sacrifice out of existence (you valued your own sense of satisfaction over your own child’s welfare when giving that milk to the starving neighbor child, and so on and so forth). It turns into a ridiculous semantic argument because she has no grasp of the vocabulary she’s using.

Rand pointed out that values are hierarchical, and you should never sacrifice a higher value, for the sake of a lower one . . . or a non-value. If the family next door is starving, and you give them a can of beans . . . it’s with the understanding that you value your neighbors more than you value a can of beans. Even if you don’t know them, you’d have the feeling that “they’re human beings just like me, so all other things being equal, I can empathize with their suffering and give them the beans.” But what if “all other things” aren’t equal? What if you know that these people have never done anything to better their situation, and have a habit of stealing from anyone who tries to help them? Then those people would be no value to you, and you shouldn’t help them. (You might do something to help their innocent children, though).

This is even further demonstration that Rand doesn’t understand the word ‘objective’. There is no possible way value can be hierarchical. Value is entirely dependent upon context. To a starving person, that can of beans that you have is extremely valuable. In fact, it is so valuable that it would be in their self interest to steal it or kill for it so that they don’t fucking starve.

Notice that this entire scenario presupposes rational values. If you value slothfulness, dishonesty and thievery rather than hard work, honesty and self-sufficiency, the entire scenario collapses.

Rational values aren’t the same for everyone. To the starving mother who can’t find work or charity, thievery might be a rational choice. And again we get back to the point about Rand’s values not being objective.

***This is why Rand always said that we need a moral revolution before a political one. ***An entire society in which everyone is free to act on his own rational self-interest can only exist if at least most of the people are rational enough to know what their self-interest is. A society of thieves and mystics can’t survive under any system.

And this is where Rand starkly disagrees with many of her critics, the ones who object, “What about human nature?” Rand’s view of human nature is one that includes rationality, honesty, independence and success. When her critics talk about “human nature,” they’re implying that people are irrational, dishonest, dependent and unsuccessful. Obviously most people fall somewhere in the middle; that’s why even in a “laissez-faire” society, you still need enforceable laws to protect people from the misdeeds of others. And nobody comes around to grab that can of beans out of your cold dead hands, and gives it to your neighbors, deserving or otherwise. They’re your beans, and it’s your choice.

In my experience, people who whine about the negative aspects of “human nature” are revealing an awful lot about themselves.

And that’s why this falls apart on philosophical grounds. Biology and social constructs and context are what determines human nature. Just because you say thievery isn’t a rational value, doesn’t make it so. You can’t have a moral revolution because morals are individual values. You can’t have universal individual values without having identical people in identical circumstances. Creating a few loose rules to abide by is advice, it’s not philosophy.

[haymarketmartyr]

@A.Selene

If you had read my post more carefully, you would realize I said that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, not that they are. Arguing that people aren’t free to live their lives how they wish is silly; of course they aren’t. But shouldn’t they be? Or are you arguing that people shouldn’t be free? In a country where we have to wear seat belts or face fines, can’t smoke or ingest what we want, where hundreds of thousands languish in prisons, and a considerable amount of people can’t even marry who they want, you are seriously arguing that we must achieve “balance” - i.e. less freedom?

Yes I am.

We live in society with other people. We live in a democratic republic where citizens elect others to represent them and run the government for them. People should not be free to live their lives as they see fit. Unless they have their own little island and do not need anybody else, why should anyone be treated like some sort of god better than everyone else?

All of this stuff keeps coming down to the same thing - the balance between the individual and society. Followers of Rand and libertarians have an exaggerated sense of their own self importance and tip the scales radically in favor of the individual over that of society. That is selfish and contrary to the spirit of community which is necessary for all of us to thrive in the world we live in.

To be frank, this whole liberty and freedom and live like we want to live is a phony strawman. It looks good on a big flag being waved at the head of the parade but is only a nice illusion for the locals. In the end, it evolves to a discussion about the margins of government power and individual rights.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

And of course, she would never accept a government program which taxes some and gives the benefits to others.

OK so I have brought this example up a dozen times at least and noone has addressed it. According to what you just said, my neighbor who doesn’t want to pay real estate taxes because he sends his kids to private school is fully consistent with the principles of Objectivism. Right?

Have you looked? Or are you just assuming? Are you including in that people who refuse to take government aid that’s available to them because of their principles, or who do not seek charity when they’re down because they don’t believe in it?

I am just assuming and no I don’t include people who turn down government benefits (I can think of more than a few governors that seemed to be willing take that sort of principled stand on behalf of their constituents). I am looking for people who like Reardon have given up great wealth to drop out of society (was Howard Hughes an Ayn rand disciple?) to make a statement about their ideals.

You seem to have a need to paint Rand’s followers as a bunch of greedy selfish people who take and take and never give. In my experience, that’s simply not the case.

Not all of them. My girlfriend in college was just naive and kinda stupid (but a lot hotter than I was used to so it was kind of worth reading AS), I think there are others who have over time convinced themselves that most people who are invoking Rand are doing so in the same way they are. Seriously, the folks who invoke Rand are more like Glenn Beck than Ron Paul.

People who want to smear the philosophy as greedy and selfish focus on the first half of that statement, and ignore the second half. The second half is absolutely as important as the first.

To folks like you maybe, but to all the folks on wall street that had been talking the talk for years until THEY needed a bailout, the first part is a LOT more important than the second part.

They don’t march on Washington demanding free health care, free education and free housing paid for by the ‘rich’. Are these acts not also greedy?

Well I don’t know about free all of this stuff but I do believe that there are some goods that should not be distributed according to ability to pay. Education ranks pretty high on that list for me.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ruminator

And what you’ve done is created a Venn diagram in your head of Rand quoters intersected with people who have their own pet theories of fair taxation. This intersection of people (which is not the point of this thread) is who you’re arguing with.

If you want to debate Rand’s writings, then debate what she actually said. If you want to debate with the nameless people in your Venn diagram, you’re just shadowboxing. I say “shadowboxing” because I don’t see anyone in this thread stepping in to represent the people in your Venn diagram. You’ve created a straw man in other words.

hrmmm maybe. OK then I will try to limit my arguments to those things Rand has actually said as opposed to how she is commonly used and quoted today.

This thread and the context of msmith’s quote is about Rand’s writings and not about the compliance of her followers matching fictional characters.

Do most of the Christian followers “sell all their wordly possessions to give to the poor”? No they don’t, but that’s irrelevant to the point that gospels has Jesus saying it. The number of followers who comply with that parable is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus said it.

Well I was responding to another poster. But to be fair the fact that Chirstians might be hypocrites doesn’t make Rands folowers any less hypocritical.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

But Rand paid her taxes.

Ahh but she probably thought it was highly immoral to do so. After all she couldn’t have possibly supported all that welath rdistribution that was going on back then. What iwth public education, social security, welfare, etc.

Based on which moral code? Accord to Rand’s it is immoral. According to other codes, it’s not. There is no one absolute moral code. I say that as someone who enjoys Rand’s novels, am sympathetic to much of her philosophy, but don’t buy into her certainty that she has uncovered the one and only truth.

So you also think that she would have thought paying taxes would be immmoral but she did it anyways. (Is there any chance that she didn’t drink the cool aid she was feeding you?) Well at least we have identified one place where I disagree with her and find her position immoral (and perhaps a bit hypocritical).

Rand would have absolutely hated Bush.

I’m not so sure.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ruminator

The phrase “unless they CHOOSE to” is implied by the next sentence “pursuit of his own rational self-interest.” The rational self-interest gives the human being the choice.

How the hell do you parse the EXIT signs in buildings? Do you only look for “EXIT IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO” signs? Because if your eyeballs happen to accidentally glance upon a naked unqualified “EXIT” sign, then you must find your belongings and leave immediately!

Reading your unsophisticated restatement of Rand’s quote is both hilarious and painful.

I don’t buy it either, Rand made it clear in the John Galt speech that her idiocy did not actually extend that far.

So what about the public education? Is public education immoral?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@panache45

In my experience, people who whine about the negative aspects of “human nature” are revealing an awful lot about themselves.

So everyone who denounces comunism because it provides no incentive to the individual to produce is actually a lazy freeloader? I don’t get your point?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

I’m just curious. I’ve posted the public education example at least a DOZEN times.

Why doesn’t some Randian just man up and say that public education is immoral? Why all the equivocation and rationalizing? Why not just say that taxing someone to pay for someone else’s education against their will is immoral?

I mean if you can make arguemnts saying that public education is OK because it serves a greater good then you have just created a lophoope through which I can drive everything from universal healthcare to cap and trade. The only constraint would be your very non-objective opinions about what constitutes the greater good.

[Ruminator]

Why doesn’t some Randian just man up and say that public education is immoral?

winterhawk11 already addressed this in a previous post. But to be clear, I’m not saying winterhawk11 is a “Randian.”

@Damuri_Ajashi

So what about the public education? Is public education immoral?

If I can try to channel Rand for a moment: if “public” means “govt forced” then yes, “public education” is immoral. The govt is forcing people to pay for it. The govt is also forcing parents to enroll their children in it.

However, another reasonable way for “public” education to happen is for people to voluntarily band together to teach the children. The official government is not an absolute prerequisite for “public education” in this sense and history has shown that tribes, churches, etc have organized education before govt got involved. Also, if “education” is truly the end goal, then even an organized effort (whether that organized effort is a church or govt) is not necessary.

Now, the inevitable question is if the govt method gets better results. I haven’t thought about it so I don’t know. I do know that no nation of 300 million citizens has tried it so it’s difficult to compare outcomes.

Also keep in mind that some people truly value “education” more than “govt public education”. They are 2 different things.

[panache45]

We need to clarify Rand’s use of the word “objectivity.” She did not use it to mean “dispassionate” or “unfeeling” or “universal.” She used the word in a metaphysical and epistemological sense.

Metaphysically, objectivity means A=A, independent of your consciousness. Facts of reality are what they are, independent of anybody’s beliefs or feelings. Wishing won’t make it so.

Epistemologically, objectivity is the recognition of the fact that in order to understand the facts of reality, you need to use reason and the rules of logic, not your preconceptions or feelings or somebody else’s opinion. This is the only valid way we have of understanding reality. These are the only proper tools of cognition. Emotions, on the other hand, are our response to reality, not a path that leads to understanding. Emotions have their place, but they are not tools of cognition. Again, wishing won’t make it so.

So objectivity does not require us to abandon our feelings and values, provided they are a rational response to objective reality. Rational, in this context, means appropriate with the facts. You wouldn’t normally feel love when confronted with a terrorist., or feel terror in a field of daisies . . . unless there were some extraordinary extenuating circumstances. And even then, or *especially *then, you need reason to sort out an appropriate response.

Or let’s say you’re just meeting someone. You wouldn’t start out by valuing that person, except in a very general sense that you’d value any random human being. Rather, you’d observe him and rationally begin to draw inferences. Then you’d, over time, develop an opinion of him . . . and the appropriate feelings. In this context, your feelings are objective, i.e. based on the facts of reality. And obviously we can be mistaken . . . we are not omniscient . . . and if we perceive new or changed facts of reality, our emotions should change accordingly.

But if someone disregards the facts of reality, in favor of their feelings . . . e.g. continuing to love someone, regardless of their dishonesty and obnoxious behavior . . . those feelings are neither rational nor objective. Or if you have a phobia . . . say, a fear of driving over bridges . . . that fear is inconsistent with the facts of reality, and is therefore neither rational nor objective.

Rand (and other Objectivists) wrote extensively about the relation between reason and emotions. I’ve barely scratched the surface here.

[panache45]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m just curious. I’ve posted the public education example at least a DOZEN times.

Why doesn’t some Randian just man up and say that public education is immoral? Why all the equivocation and rationalizing? Why not just say that taxing someone to pay for someone else’s education against their will is immoral?

I mean if you can make arguemnts saying that public education is OK because it serves a greater good then you have just created a lophoope through which I can drive everything from universal healthcare to cap and trade. The only constraint would be your very non-objective opinions about what constitutes the greater good.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Back when I was a capital-O Objectivist, I would have said that public education is immoral. Why should you be forced to pay for my child’s education?

But now that I’m a “recovering” lowercase-o objectivist, with one foot slightly in the Communitarian camp, I’m in favor of public education . . . provided the kids actually get educated . . . which more often than not, they don’t.

[panache45]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So everyone who denounces comunism because it provides no incentive to the individual to produce is actually a lazy freeloader? I don’t get your point?

HUH???

What I meant was that the phrase “human nature” can mean anything you want it to mean, and what you want it to mean says a lot about you.

To Rand, “human nature” meant reason, intelligence, optimism, happiness, integrity, independence, etc.

But when people say Objectivism is unrealistic because of “human nature,” they’re referring to dishonesty, the desire to screw people, indifference to the feelings and rights of others, etc.

[elucidator]

@panache45

…But now that I’m a “recovering” lowercase-o objectivist …

Your recovery may be hastened by a generous application of sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll. Worked for me.

[Starving_Artist]

In my case, when I’m referring to ‘human nature’, it is in the sense that people don’t naturally tend to base their views and decisions on rational, logical thought and they often act impulsively, selfishly, unwisely, lazily, etc.

Additionally, many people simply aren’t driven to maximize their potential…or even to try. One thing that this country is currently teaching me is that there are a great many people–perhaps a majority–who want merely to coast through life, slogging through their jobs and putting in their eight hours a day, and having everyone else supply and pay for their needs.

On the one hand I suppose there would be no need for Rand to proselytize for Objectivity and other elements of her philosophy if they already existed, but I still think that too much of her philosophy runs contrary to too much of human nature for it to be viable to the degree that it becomes accepted by society as the way everyone should live, and the way that business and government should be conducted.

[John_Mace]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m just curious. I’ve posted the public education example at least a DOZEN times.

Why doesn’t some Randian just man up and say that public education is immoral? Why all the equivocation and rationalizing? Why not just say that taxing someone to pay for someone else’s education against their will is immoral?

According to Objectivist philosophy, public education is immoral, as it is practiced in most countries. Satisfied? The only caveat would be if everyone agreed (100% of those participating) to pool their money to educate their kids cooperatively. Or, if taxes were voluntary, and everyone knew that expenditures would be put to a vote.

Now, I’ve asked you several times how you objectively define whether something is moral or not. So what if Objectivism defines morality thusly? It’s a coherent set of values, that form a plan for making decisions and living one’s life. I know of many such systems, and none of them are completely compatible.

[John_Mace]

@Starving_Artist

In my case, when I’m referring to ‘human nature’, it is in the sense that people don’t naturally tend to base their views and decisions on rational, logical thought and they often act impulsively, selfishly, unwisely, lazily, etc.

Additionally, many people simply aren’t driven to maximize their potential…or even to try. One thing that this country is currently teaching me is that there are a great many people–perhaps a majority–who want merely to coast through life, slogging through their jobs and putting in their eight hours a day, and having everyone else supply and pay for their needs.

On the one hand I suppose there would be no need for Rand to proselytize for Objectivity and other elements of her philosophy if they already existed, but I still think that too much of her philosophy runs contrary to too much of human nature for it to be viable to the degree that it becomes accepted by society as the way everyone should live, and the way that business and government should be conducted.

Yes. I agree that her philosophy is not fully scientific in that she really did not study what we know from anthropology and evolutionary psychology to be “human nature”. Of course the latter didn’t really exist while she was formulating her philosophy, so it’s not really fair to hold that against her. Hers was more a way of thinking like the ancient Greeks-- to ponder things in the abstract rather than to test things in the real world.

People don’t want absolute freedom. Or at least very few do. People want lots of freedom, but they want some societal protection, too. It’s a matter of how we balance those things when figuring public policy.

[XT]

@Damuri Ajashi

To be fair, that is not what your quoted language is saying. It says:

“He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

I think you have overlooked the word “must”

the quote does not say:

“He may exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others (unless he CHOOSES to) nor sacrificing others to himself (unless they CHOOSE to). The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Even if we parse it that way and make sure we emphasize the ‘must’ part, it doesn’t really contradict anything I said. A person MUST exist for his or her own sake. Check. The MUST not sacrifice themselves for others. And they MUST pursue their own ‘rational self-interest’. Check and check. Nothing there to preclude me giving up worldly possessions or even my own life, if I choose to do so. What you are over looking is the whole choice aspect…and that’s the critical part to understanding her philosophy. Well, that and the Army-esque ‘be the best person you can be’ part. Her philosophy is all about choice, about choosing whether or not one should give up ones life or ones property…and about the choice to live ones life to the very best one can, to be the best person one can be, to strive always for excellence. Yeah, it’s not a practical philosophy in the real world, because humans simply don’t work that way. But it’s all about the journey, not simply arriving at the destination.

Well, its mostly because of how her work is used by people these days. Its been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged and I don’t remember much of it because I found it so poorly written and filled with silly ideas. The only part I have reread recently (a few years ago when I found out that Greenspan was into Ayn Rand) was the manifesto at the end of the book and it seemed to give license for some pretty selfish immoral behaviour and indeed a lot of people use it to support their selfish immoral positions.

Have you noticed something? A lot of people use a lot of philosophy and ideas for selfish and immoral purposes. A few examples off the top of my head: The Communist Manifesto. The Bible. The Koran. The Constitution of the United States of America.

Etc…etc…etc…

If you found her writings poor and filled with silly ideas, well, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are putting forth your opinions in this thread after admitting that it’s been a while since you read Atlas Shrugged (and did you read her other fiction and non-fiction works?), you have limited memories of it, and didn’t like it to begin with. Do you see any, um, issues, with attempting to enter into this kind of debate on this particular subject given your level of knowledge on the subject? Do you understand why some people in this thread who HAVE read her books are a bit exasperated by those who clearly haven’t, or who possibly did years ago but equally obviously didn’t like what they were reading and thus probably didn’t fully absorb the core ideas she was trying to convey?

-XT

[John_Mace]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Ahh but she probably thought it was highly immoral to do so. After all she couldn’t have possibly supported all that welath rdistribution that was going on back then. What iwth public education, social security, welfare, etc.

No, she didn’t think it was “highly immoral to do so”. Unless, of course, you’ve got a cite showing she did.

So you also think that she would have thought paying taxes would be immmoral but she did it anyways. (Is there any chance that she didn’t drink the cool aid she was feeding you?) Well at least we have identified one place where I disagree with her and find her position immoral (and perhaps a bit hypocritical).

That’s not what I was saying. She didn’t make the laws taxing people, so she’s not making other people pay them. You’re mixing up whether she thinks taxes should be “X”, and whether one should pay those taxes if the consequence is going to jail for not doing so.

I’m not so sure.

Well, I am. The single fact that he was an Evangelical Christian would have been enough. She was very much anti-religion.