# Did Ayn Rand sincerely believe that Objectivism would be good for mankind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784 "2013-07-17T20:32:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/121 "2013-07-23T04:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > In 1924 Stalin took control of a backward, agrarian country, marginally industrialized by the onset of WWI and that little industry devastated by that war and the Russian Civil War, and – by methods which were bloody, brutal, repressive, wasteful, but effective – by 1939 had turned it into an industrial power capable of going head-to-head with Hitler’s Germany; and Germany had always been at the leading edge of the Industrial Revolution. No way could that have happened, if Russia had had a free-market system during that period. Hmm, what about [what Anthony Sutton says](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCKLcEJ0zzg) - that it was the West that did much of the industrial set up work in Russia ? Not my field so I couldn’t say either way, it’s a period of history I really need to get into. He may be simply biased towards capitalism, but what if he’s right ? ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Farias](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Jeff\_Farias](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Farias)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/122 "2013-07-23T08:46:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, I misspoke. What I was thinking of was: > > But, that still supports my thesis WRT Rand’s philosophical ignorance. Even if I were to concede the ignorance of the writings of a particular philosopher, that is in no way relevant to understanding the fundamental nature of existence. In order to know a subject it’s not necessary to know everything that others have written on that subject. I detect a little second-handedness in your thinking. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/123 "2013-07-23T12:39:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That works when **everybody** does it. You do not seriously believe, do you, that if the Atlases alone withdrew to Galt’s Gulch IRL, (1) the rest of the world could not get along without them or (2) they could have a workable society all by themselves? For one thing, many more people than the ‘Atlases’ withdrew from productive life. Atlas Shrugged makes this point. She focuses on her primary characters because, y’know, story. I totally do believe that if people are not incentivised per their selfish interests, the world will quickly not get along. As to whether the Atlases could have a workable society? Sure, why not? Especially as they are portrayed in the book, nearly all of them are self made millionaire types, all having worked their way up from the bottom, even the heirs. It’s entirely possible that they could set up a greenfield society. And if she’s cutting a few corners(law and order, public goods etc) in the representation of their society, hey, Galt’s speech wasn’t going to fit itself into the book 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/124 "2013-07-23T21:57:39Z")
There’s an interesting “shrug” going on right now, in the organized boycott among a number of top-level entertainers, who promise to stop performing in U.S. states that have “stand your ground” laws. Will it be effective? Or will this simply open up a market for second-tier entertainers? Can an “Atlas Shrugged” style strike of this nature succeed? Will TicketMaster suffer million-dollar losses? Will big theaters and stages and stadiums take a massive hit? My feeling is that it will be all but imperceptible. “Atlas” is really more of a “Hydra” – or an army. It can take a lot of losses before significantly affecting performance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/125 "2013-07-23T22:56:22Z")
> [@Jeff\_Farias](#): > > Even if I were to concede the ignorance of the writings of a particular philosopher, that is in no way relevant to understanding the fundamental nature of existence. > > In order to know a subject it’s not necessary to know everything that others have written on that subject. It is if you’re a philosopher. That’s how you avoid re-inventing the wheel, and, worse, making it square. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/126 "2013-07-23T23:00:07Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > As to whether the Atlases could have a workable society? Sure, why not? Especially as they are portrayed in the book, nearly all of them are self made millionaire types, all having worked their way up from the bottom, even the heirs. That’s the problem. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. People like that might **say** they’re committed to a society of autonomous equals, but they are exactly the kind of people who both want and expect to be boss and will make trouble if they’re not. Self-made millionaires are not much different from career politicians in that regard, except that experience has made politicians more realistic about the fact that there’s only so much room at the top. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/127 "2013-07-23T23:08:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s the problem. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. People like that might **say** they’re committed to a society of autonomous equals, but they are exactly the kind of people who both want and expect to be boss and will make trouble if they’re not. Self-made millionaires are not much different from career politicians in that regard, except that experience has made politicians more realistic about the fact that there’s only so much room at the top. It would be like that experiment in Huxle’s _Brave New World:_ > [@](#): > > “I was wondering,” said the Savage, “why you had [Epsilons] at all – seeing that you can get whatever you want out of those bottles. Why don’t you make everybody an Alpha Double Plus while you’re about it?” > > Mustapha Mond laughed. “Because we have no wish to have our throats cut,” he answered. “We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn’t fail to be unstable and miserable. Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas-that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!” he repeated. > > The Savage tried to imagine it, not very successfully. > > “It’s an absurdity. An Alpha-decanted, Alpha-conditioned man would go mad if he had to do Epsilon Semi-Moron work – go mad, or start smashing things up. Alphas can be completely socialized – but only on condition that you make them do Alpha work. Only an Epsilon can be expected to make Epsilon sacrifices, for the good reason that for him they aren’t sacrifices; they’re the line of least resistance. His conditioning has laid down rails along which he’s got to run. He can’t help himself; he’s foredoomed. Even after decanting, he’s still inside a bottle – an invisible bottle of infantile and embryonic fixations. Each one of us, of course,” the Controller meditatively continued, “goes through life inside a bottle. But if we happen to be Alphas, our bottles are, relatively speaking, enormous. We should suffer acutely if we were confined in a narrower space. You cannot pour upper-caste champagne-surrogate into lower-caste bottles. It’s obvious theoretically. But it has also been proved in actual practice. The result of the Cyprus experiment was convincing.” > > “What was that?” asked the Savage. > > Mustapha Mond smiled. “Well, you can call it an experiment in rebottling if you like. It began in A.F. 473. The Controllers had the island of Cyprus cleared of all its existing inhabitants and re-colonized with a specially prepared batch of twenty-two thousand Alphas. All agricultural and industrial equipment was handed over to them and they were left to manage their own affairs. The result exactly fulfilled all the theoretical predictions. The land wasn’t properly worked; there were strikes in all the factories; the laws were set at naught, orders disobeyed; all the people detailed for a spell of low-grade work were perpetually intriguing for high-grade jobs, and all the people with high-grade jobs were counter-intriguing at all costs to stay where they were. Within six years they were having a first-class civil war. When nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand had been killed, the survivors unanimously petitioned the World Controllers to resume the government of the island. Which they did. And that was the end of the only society of Alphas that the world has ever seen.” > > The Savage sighed, profoundly. > > “The optimum population,” said Mustapha Mond, “is modelled on the iceberg-eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above.” ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/128 "2013-07-23T23:23:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s the problem. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. People like that might **say** they’re committed to a society of autonomous equals, but they are exactly the kind of people who both want and expect to be boss and will make trouble if they’re not. Self-made millionaires are not much different from career politicians in that regard, except that experience has made politicians more realistic about the fact that there’s only so much room at the top. My counter would be saying these chiefs have done their bit as Indians, and gone back to that stage in life willingly, for the sake of ideals that they hold dear and for which they have given up a great deal, usually after a great deal of reflection. They would be doing their very best to try and make this valley work. Nor are they doing drudge work as employees of any one else. They are entrepreneurs in the valley too. And her characters are happy there, and the way she has written them, they would be. I DO think that her work is internally consistent, at the very least. But in a work of fiction, there’s not much point second guessing the author is there? She’s using the valley to provide a glimpse of a potentially different system where individual rights are respected to a greater degree. She hasn’t laid out that system in great detail. Would Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Sam Walton and twenty other ‘Atlases’ from our world go away to a valley to try and do this and succeed? Probably not, and I’m not saying at any point that Ayn Rand is infallible or her ideas should be adopted in whole cloth. I’m just saying that there’s far more plausibility and good in there than fantasy and evil, and that a lot of the criticism I see seems misinformed and out of all proportion to her actual ideas. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/129 "2013-07-23T23:44:51Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > . . . a lot of the criticism I see seems misinformed and out of all proportion to her actual ideas. Well, I daresay her disciples are mostly to blame for that. Not that they haven’t read her, but . . . they don’t make anyone who has met them want to. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/130 "2013-07-23T23:57:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, I daresay her disciples are mostly to blame for that. Not that they haven’t read her, but . . . they don’t make anyone who has met them want to. I dunno. I suppose I haven’t met too many/any ‘disciples’. Fundamentalists of any stripe are usually unpleasant. But at the core, her ideas are pretty positive messages - individual happiness, non-initiation of violence, not depending on nor imposing yourself on others. I find I can get behind most of them quite easily. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/131 "2013-07-24T01:03:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, I daresay her disciples are mostly to blame for that. Not that they haven’t read her, but . . . they don’t make anyone who has met them want to. I agree that the people who like Rand seem to misunderstand her as much as those who don’t. But that is no excuse for those who don’t like her to keep on misunderstanding her. I struggled with her stuff for a long time, because I honestly thought it must be more difficult than it seems. But, no, she really seems to lay things out quite plain, so I don’t understand why people keep insisting things like, “her philosophy is about being greedy and not giving to the needy.” ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/132 "2013-07-24T01:26:06Z")
Rand’s fiction isn’t anything so profound that it warrants real scholarly study or talk of intellectual grappling. As a writer, her prose is better than workman-like, and can be pretty decent. But the most interesting aspect about her work is the moral allegories she uses to explore her views, which are unfortunately robbed of their full potency by being over-worked with cartoonish characters, implausible situations and the inescapable presence of Rand’s acute dogmatism. As for her philosophy, it’s pretty much garbage in terms of meeting any sophisticated definition of moral philosophy or epistemology. Skip it and read someone like Nozick if you’re interested in libertarianism. Objectivism is a joke that people who haven’t studied philosophy mistake for philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/133 "2013-07-24T01:40:34Z")
The problem with her philosophy is that she is right about humans being altruistic for selfish reasons. But that’s the entire reason why we promote altruism as a virtue. Doing what we think is virtuous makes us feel good. And that good feeling is why we are altruistic in the first place. Take that away, and would just be greedy bastards who ignored the less fortunate. The point is that it doesn’t matter what she says. What she actually wound up supporting, if you take her thoughts to their natural conclusions, is exactly how we sum them up. The fact that she honestly thought she was helping out the unfortunate is irrelevant because her ideas self-evidently don’t. And that’s why people are dismissive of her. We don’t have any desire to get to know the intricacies of a philosophy that can be so easily dismantled. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/134 "2013-07-24T01:52:47Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > . . . As a writer, her prose is better than workman-like, and can be pretty decent. But the most interesting aspect about her work is the moral allegories she uses to explore her views, which are unfortunately robbed of their full potency by being over-worked with cartoonish characters, implausible situations and the inescapable presence of Rand’s acute dogmatism. . . . An example I alluded to earlier in this thread is the “train in the tunnel” disaster. The good part of this chapter is that it is a superb exploration of how industrial accidents happen. It’s almost an exact fore-telling of the Chernobyl disaster. But that bad part of this chapter is that, at the end, when she lists the identities of the people killed in the accident…not a single one of them is an innocent bystander. Instead, Rand goes out of her way to identify each one of them as a stooge, oppressor, or “bad guy” in one way or another. Apparently, in her world, an accident could never kill a little boy on his first vacation trip, or a hard-working stenographer seeking employment in another city. It could only happen to a government worker looking for someone to regulate, or other wicked people per Rand’s morality. This cartoonish ending ruins what is otherwise a very insightful chapter. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/135 "2013-07-24T04:22:05Z")
:rolleyes: All this oh-so-intelligent critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and only one mention of “enlightened self interest”. And that didn’t happen until Post 91. Unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/136 "2013-07-24T04:30:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: All this oh-so-intelligent critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and only one mention of “enlightened self interest”. And that didn’t happen until Post 91. Unbelievable. Rand’s philosophy is not enlightened self-interest. It is rational self-interest. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/137 "2013-07-24T04:41:07Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > Rand’s philosophy is not enlightened self-interest. It is rational self-interest. Which was referred to in the OP and mentioned flat out on page one. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/138 "2013-07-24T05:52:07Z")
Oh, so sorry! You used a gold-fringed flag and didn’t say “Accepted for Services.” Jail time for you. Seriously, how silly is it to demand we use a specific phrase in our discussion? Is it some law somewhere? Didn’t Rand emphasize freedom? I guess it doesn’t apply to discussions of her work. ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/139 "2013-07-24T06:27:02Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Oh, so sorry! You used a gold-fringed flag and didn’t say “Accepted for Services.” Jail time for you. > > Seriously, how silly is it to demand we use a specific phrase in our discussion? Is it some law somewhere? > > Didn’t Rand emphasize freedom? I guess it doesn’t apply to discussions of her work. If you’re going to flounce into a thread-tail denouncing participants as know-nothings for failing to engage with Rand because a specific phrase “enlightened self-interest” has not been mentioned, it’s pretty damn important you understand that phrase and its import. Rand’s philosophy is NOT enlightened self-interest. That’s not what it means. It’s irrelevant that nobody is talking about enlightened self-interest, so the interjection was worse than useless. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784/140 "2013-07-24T06:50:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: All this oh-so-intelligent critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and only one mention of “enlightened self interest”. And that didn’t happen until Post 91. Unbelievable. :dubious: Others have pointed it out, but I will too, since I’ve brought it up on page 1 of the thread, and referenced the concept multiple times. Post #38 mentions “rational self-interest”. And this thread really is a far more intelligent and civilised discussion of Rand than any I’ve seen on this board. I think we have **Nzinga** to thank for that, in not allowing the sort of bullying that is common in discussions of Rand and was attempted here. Although OP, you’ve kinda backed off from the thread. Not going in a direction that interests you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-ayn-rand-sincerely-believe-that-objectivism-would-be-good-for-mankind/663784.md?page=8)