But doesn’t that mean…?
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.
Wow, where did that come from?
From the Ayn Rand Institute www.aynrand.org
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.
I would certainly hope that anyone with a degree in philosophy was able to avoid the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
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.
-
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”.
-
Universalizability: Moral principles apply to all who are in the relavantly similar situation.
-
Overridingness: Moral principles take precedence over other considerations including cultural, prudential, or asthetic.
-
Publicity: Moral principles must be public.
-
Practicability: Moral theory must be workable.
Marc
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-
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 
Or something like that.
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.
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.
Is this the one being made into a movie with Angelina Jolie? Or is that Atlas Shrugged?
-FrL-
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.
That’s Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was made into a movie in 1949, though, with Gary Cooper, Patricia Neil, and Robert Massey.
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.
Thanks, mangoldm.
Sorry, I can’t let this slide.
-
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.)
-
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.
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.
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-
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.
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.
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).