Did Ayn Rand sincerely believe that Objectivism would be good for mankind?

Great Debates
1

I have been mocked for struggling with her books and her philosophy. When I try to discuss it, I’m told her writing is simple and is only interesting to first year college students and blah blah blah. This has made me want to abandon the conversation, and so I still thirst for the chance to honestly discuss her philosophy.

My main question is, do most of her critics think she is actually an evil or wicked person who cares nothing for others who are worst off than her? Because, to me, it sounds like her message is that those who are worst off will benefit from the selfishness of those who are better off. Now, even if she is wrong about that (and I think she is, ultimately), does it make her a bad person to believe it?

She seems to honestly think that if every man does the very best for himself, society at large will benefit. She doesn’t say to not give to the poor. She says instead, to give to the poor if you think it will help you. And she concedes that it often does. She seems to believe that one should align themselves with those who share the values that one holds for themselves. In that case, many, many people will be willing and happy to give to the poor and provide for those who need help in society. She seems to me, to honestly believe this is the best way.

I personally believe that some things have to be ‘forced’. I believe that roads and schools and things like that should be made available to everyone, with the government stepping in to make it so.

But I don’t doubt that Rand honestly believes that her philosophy is the best thing for humanity.

So do you think she is actually greedy and wicked, or that she is honestly trying to practice what she calls ‘rational selfishness’ which she believes will result in a better life for everyone, including the less fortunate?

I have tried a thread about Rand before. I am hoping this one will answer my questions and allow me the chance to discuss a topic that interests me, because like I said, whenever I try to have these discussions, especially in real life, I find that people won’t even take me seriously. I do not exaggerate when I say I have been called an idiot for even tussling with the subject as much as I have. That hasn’t been exactly fertile soil for discussion!

2

First, I think you mean objectivism, not objectivity.

I think Rand’s philosophies boil down to a rationalized selfishness that appeals to, well, college students and others who want to believe in their own exceptionalism. It’s all part of a pattern in which the young think they are invincible and know all the answers; since they need nothing from anyone else and never will, and are such darned fine examples of humanity, they are naturally superior types and entitled to take whatever they want without considering the needs of weaker or lesser people.

Some people, like Rand and her coterie, never seem to grow out of this mindset. Most people do have a humbling experience that expands their sense of what it means to be a social human in a complex world, and adjust their philosophy accordingly.

3

She wanted to call her philosophical system “Existentialism,” but that name was already taken.

4

Well said, AB.

5

[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
… I think you mean objectivism…
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Wish you would have told me that before I just used it wrong in a conversation in real life about 7 times in a row.

6

As long as you weren’t giving a 300-page monologue I think you’re good. Anyway I fixed the thread title.

7

I don’t know about the college kids (I’m always getting them thrown at me every time I broach this topic, though) but when I read her actual words, I don’t get that feeling. I don’t get the idea that she thinks the way AB describes. She seems to honestly believe that anyone can learn to do well and that those who are truly unlucky in their circumstances will benefit from those who aren’t, just by the fact that many ‘luckier’ people will benefit from helping the unlucky.

Edit: Thanks Marley. Who is Nzinga Galt, anyway?

8

I think Rand believed that people are often responsible for their own suffering: they screw up their life and then cry because their life is screwed up. But I don’t question her sincerity, just her logic and accuracy.

9

Here’s a pretty good introduction to Objectivism – from TVTropes, but it’s actually more in-depth than the Wikipedia page. (Rand actually was a bit more of a philosopher than she generally gets credit for, but also less – she coined her own names for some concepts in apparent ignorance that they already had names.)

10

Ever since Adam Smith it is easy to see that the baker provides our daily bread, not out of altruism, but out of selfishness. And this is not horrific. Every day we go to work to serve our fellow man, not because we love our fellow man so much, but because we gots to get paid.

In fact, if we relied solely on altruistic philanthropists for our daily bread, we’d go to bed hungry most nights. When we rely on selfish capitalists, we have to go down to the gym to sweat off the extra pounds.

That means, since selfish capitalism puts more bread in more mouths, selfishness is more moral than altruism and philanthropists are assholes. People do stuff for their own reasons, and expecting them to help others out of the goodness of their hearts leads to all sorts of disappointing results, and pretty soon the people who expect altruism are pointing guns at you to force you to be altruistic, or else.

I still agree with this notion. Note that this doesn’t mean that I believe people have a right to dump whatever chemicals they like into the commonly owned air or water, or that taxes are immoral, or that sidewalks should be privately owned.

11

Thanks for that link, BrainGlutton. I’m not surprised to hear that she coined her own names for concepts that already exist in ignorance that they already had names. Because, firstly, she admits that philosophy didn’t really influence her much, except for Aristotle, so she probably didn’t know a lot about other’s ideas. But also, because I also have a bad habit of coining terms that already exist and then being all shocked and disappointed when I find out. Sigh.

12

Shorthand for “those making their first intellectual discovery.” It can be teens, the resolutely blue- or pink-collar worker who’s never read a serious book before, someone older who hasn’t read a political or sociological thesis before… or, most likely, someone about 20 exposed to their first Really Big Idea. We’ve had an influx of these wide-eyed guppies lately.

To fall head-over-heels for Rand or Marx or Paul (or the original Paul) takes, I think, a large dose of ignorance - empty space that is suddenly filled with The Answer, and my is it tasty. The subject doesn’t have enough comparative material to judge the revelation, so Marx’s economic theories sound wonderful and so forth.

I always think of the story of the French statesman whose advisor rushed into the room. “M’sieur! Your son has announced he is a Communist! You must disown him!” To which the statesman replies, “My son is 21. If he had not become a Communist at 21, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I’ll disown him then.”

13

Well, she had reason to believe the opposite would destroy mankind…

14

I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. I found it to be “light” literature, but it was filled with interesting people doing and saying interesting things.

The part about the train going into an unsafe tunnel was very good. It reminded me a lot of Chernobyl. It explored how good people, uncertain of what to do, can cause horrible industrial accidents. No malice, just a “perfect storm” of events combining to lead to a disaster.

Rand’s problem is oversimplification. She figured out one of the many, many basic principles of human interaction. “You have to look out for yourself.” “Charity begins at home.” “If you don’t take care of yourself, no one else will.” “God helps those who help themselves.”

The problem was that she took this as the only basic principle of human interaction, and threw away all the rest of the world’s wisdom. She threw away “There’s no ‘I’ in team” and “Many hands make light work” and “All for One and One for All.”

She’s like an idiot cook who has just discovered pepper. For the next few weeks, everything tastes like pepper. The difference is that most people get over this kind of phase in a few weeks. She never did.

15

It’s really strange that you should use the words that you do, since one of the central tenets of her writing was that nobody is really entitled to anything. And she fully accepts they man is a social animal and needs others. She just rejects the idea that existence, by itself, entitles non productive members of society to support from productive members. She doesn’t deny love, bonding, respect or any other human emotions. She just asks that nobody feel entitled to them.

16

I’ll stand by my version. Rand *says *a lot of things that in the end add up to something else - something that looks a lot like monstrous self-interest and selfishness.

17

AB, I hear those criticisms of her writing too often. If one disagrees with her points, let them disagree. To constantly accuse those who do agree as being ignorant just smacks of ad hominem. “Your position is incorrect because you are just a dumb kid, or a person who doesn’t read big books”

18

If you did enjoy atlas shrugged, the most joyful scenes from the book take place in that hidden valley. That’s because there is a society and a support system of like minded people there. She hasn’t forgotten that people need each other to survive, she’s representing her own vision of how that need manifests. She calls herself a romantic author, one who represents things how they ought to be. And while I agree there a great deal of over simplified utopia to her valley, I’ve never understood the knee jerk hate she inspires.

19

Point out how, and cite

20

But, this ignores the obvious fact that altruism also really does exist. It might not be a sound basis for this or that, it might be something you will be disappointed in expecting to find sometimes, but it’s there. Expecting people to help others out of the goodness of their hearts might be unreasonable, but that does not make assholes of philanthropists, who actually do so. And there must be some philanthropic impulses even in Rand, or in any philosopher who takes the trouble to publish – you don’t do it for the money, do you?