Ayn Rand

[Melendwyr]

Enlightened self-interest works, better than most other codes of ethics. Yet, it's not perfect. There are often circumstances that hide the "correct" enlightened choice.

Respectfully, that is a flaw in you, not in the philosophy.

There's no acknowledgement that people work on imperfect information all of the time, and the choices they make are flawed.

Sure there is. It's just that the best available choices are the best choices for a reason.

I'm reminded of the opening of the book. Dagny is riding on a train. She wakes up because she senses the train has been stopped for too long. When she goes to investigate, she discovers that the conductor is waiting for a signal, and has been wating for hours. She gives the order to ignore the signal. I began expecting the book to start with a train wreck. Silly me.

She does know more about her own train system than possibly any other person in existence. The conductor, however, is clearly not acting rationally with the evidence he has available.

If you came across a person who'd been waiting at a crosswalk for hours, despite the utter lack of traffic, because the sign was broken, would you consider that person to be utilizing their reason?

 

[Melendwyr]

Look, you're obviously very defensive about this, but I am interested in her ideas.

Defensive? No. I go on the offensive when I come across rampant stupidity.

By and large, the people in this thread are not interested in Rand's ideas, even to the minimal degree needed to evaluate them. They've decided they don't like them, and they will seek any rationalizing excuse to justify the stance they've chosen.

 

[Orwell]

Defensive? No. I go on the offensive when I come across rampant stupidity.

By and large, the people in this thread are not interested in Rand's ideas, even to the minimal degree needed to evaluate them. They've decided they don't like them, and they will seek any rationalizing excuse to justify the stance they've chosen.

What if you have "evaluated her ideas" and you still don't like them?

 

[Melendwyr]

"given the circumstances"

One thing I noticed, you're arguing the correctness of the situation in the context of the book, and the critics (like me) are arguing that the situation is only possible in Rand's nightmare world.

AND Stalinist Russia, which Rand was criticizing. The scenario described is infamous for occuring regularly in the USSR.

The "don't think, don't make a decision" option was to refuse Dagny entry until she showed proper credentials.

No -- you're missing the point of the scenario. The "don't think" option was to appeal to a superior. Either refusing entry or permitting entry would have involved an individual judgment, which the soldier was not willing to make.

This guard was so weak-willed and pathetic that he couldn't react to being threatened? What kind of men was the Army training?

Killing a superior in the process of preventing them from carrying out their orders? That would be far, far worse than death when Stalin caught up with you.

 

[Melendwyr]

What if you have "evaluated her ideas" and you still don't like them?

For starters, I'd want to know why you've put quotation marks around 'evaluated'.

 

[Orwell]

For starters, I'd want to know why you've put quotation marks around 'evaluated'.

I'm paraphrasing you. To be exact, you said:"By and large, the people in this thread are not interested in Rand's ideas, even to the minimal degree needed to evaluate them. "

 

[specious_reasons]

Respectfully, that is a flaw in you, not in the philosophy.

No respect intended, I think.

 

[Skeptic]

Defensive? No. I go on the offensive when I come across rampant stupidity.

By and large, the people in this thread are not interested in Rand's ideas, even to the minimal degree needed to evaluate them. They've decided they don't like them, and they will seek any rationalizing excuse to justify the stance they've chosen.

Rand's idea in moral philosophy is an attempt to solve the age-old question: "why be moral when moral people have it so hard, while egoists succeed?". Plato's answer was that being moral takes care of one's soul, compared to which anything else doesn't matter. Rand's method is to try and show that egoism will result in moral behavior out of self-interest.

Rand gets brownie points for attempting to square the circle without crutches such as a God who punishes sinners, an afterlife, Karma, etc., but it simply doesn't work. Only in her novels are egoists moral and moral people succeed, because she can cheat by MAKING it that way in the novel. In real life, Roark and Galt would end up, well, fired (at the very least), if not the nuthouse.

 

[Zbu]

Respectfully, that is a flaw in you, not in the philosophy.

Sure there is. It's just that the best available choices are the best choices for a reason.

She does know more about her own train system than possibly any other person in existence. The conductor, however, is clearly not acting rationally with the evidence he has available.

If you came across a person who'd been waiting at a crosswalk for hours, despite the utter lack of traffic, because the sign was broken, would you consider that person to be utilizing their reason?

That's pretty strange reasoning. With crossing the road, you can see yourself that the traffic is stopping and starting. With trains and planes, you have to rely on the ground to tell where the other trains or planes are in order to make an informed decision. If anything, the conductor wasn't completely at fault: he wasn't willing to risk lives just because he was impatient.

I have no idea how that makes a reasonable philosophy when you don't have all the facts at hand and yet you're still expected to make a call without the total knowledge at hand.

 

[drkitten]

I have no idea how that makes a reasonable philosophy when you don't have all the facts at hand and yet you're still expected to make a call without the total knowledge at hand.

Because you're an ubermensch, obviously. If the Author writes the universe such that you never make a bad decision, it doesn't matter how much or how little information you have. You are one of the Chosen, predestined for greatness.

Really, there's nothing particularly stunning about Rand's philosophy. It's good old-fashioned Calvinistic "Doctrine of the Elect" for people who can't meet the standards of critical thinking necessary for fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[drkitten]

No -- you're missing the point of the scenario. The "don't think" option was to appeal to a superior.

Except that that's not a "don't think" scenario except in the rather unusual world of Rand's. In the real world, chains of command exist for a reason, and a soldier would be expected to confer with higher authority if possible, precisely because no one has enough information to make snap judgements correctly all the time.

 

[hgc]

...
Really, there's nothing particularly stunning about Rand's philosophy. It's good old-fashioned Calvinistic "Doctrine of the Elect" for people who can't meet the standards of critical thinking necessary for fundamentalist Christianity.

See post #33 for first invocation of Calvin in this thread. Great minds think alike, and then others think like Rand.

 

[specious_reasons]

Because you're an ubermensch, obviously. If the Author writes the universe such that you never make a bad decision, it doesn't matter how much or how little information you have. You are one of the Chosen, predestined for greatness.

Really, there's nothing particularly stunning about Rand's philosophy. It's good old-fashioned Calvinistic "Doctrine of the Elect" for people who can't meet the standards of critical thinking necessary for fundamentalist Christianity.

"People who can't meet the standards of critical thinking necessary for fundamentalist Christianity." Ouch. I love it.

There are certain standard motifs in philosophical fiction, and Rand uses them. What I find most troubling is that they are used poorly, and that is why the heroes need to be special people, because they have to triumph. If I hadn't read Why People Believe Weird Things, I would just write it off as hyperbole.

Oh, for the interested:
Atlas Shrugged (2007)

 

[delphi_ote]

See post #33 for first invocation of Calvin in this thread. Great minds think alike, and then others think like Rand.

?

 

[Beleth]

If you came across a person who'd been waiting at a crosswalk for hours, despite the utter lack of traffic, because the sign was broken, would you consider that person to be utilizing their reason?

Under certain conditions, yes.

 

[DrMatt]

Oh, another Ayn Rand thread. Wake me when yall are ready to trash Plato for the !@#$@# he was--or to do something interesting.

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh, another Ayn Rand thread. Wake me when yall are ready to trash Plato for the !@#$@# he was--or to do something interesting.

Plato liked butt stuff.

 

[Melendwyr]

Except that that's not a "don't think" scenario except in the rather unusual world of Rand's.

...and in totalitarian societies, in which that scenario occurred regularly.

That sort of thing has happened in the real world, drkitten. You're objecting because you think it's absurd. Of course it's absurd! That's the point.

 

[Melendwyr]

Under certain conditions, yes.

You don't get to further specify unusual conditions in which such behavior would actually be rationally justifiable. There are few behaviors which couldn't be rational in any condition.

 

[Melendwyr]

That's pretty strange reasoning. With crossing the road, you can see yourself that the traffic is stopping and starting. With trains and planes, you have to rely on the ground to tell where the other trains or planes are in order to make an informed decision. If anything, the conductor wasn't completely at fault: he wasn't willing to risk lives just because he was impatient.

Nor was he willing to investigate and determine what the problem was. Nor was he willing to call or send a messenger to find out what was going on or how he should respond. In fact, he wasn't willing to make any kind of decision at all -- he would only act when a predetermined signal told him to take a predetermined action, and he'd do nothing but that.

How exactly is that reasonable?

I have no idea how that makes a reasonable philosophy when you don't have all the facts at hand and yet you're still expected to make a call without the total knowledge at hand.

Your objection implies that no philosophy or applied strategy can be reasonable.