Ayn Rand

[skeptic griggsy]

How true, Skeptic about the mentality of the Rand-Peikoff cult. Rob Roy, indeed I do. PsyschologiSt, Steven pinker in the New Y




Rob Roy, self-interest and altruism go hand in hand in the form of mutual altruism- we wash each other's backs. As Steven Pinker,eminent psychologist, notes:" Nor does reciprocal altruism- the evolutiionary ratinoale behind fairness- imply that people do good deed sin the cynical expectation of repayment down the line.We all know of unrequited good deed ,like tipppiing a waitress in a city you will never visit again and falling on a grenade to save platoonmates."
He starts the article maintaing that Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug [father of the Green Revolution] have been instrumental in helping millions while Mother Teresa merely gave her patrons "dangerously primitive medical care." I think Rand would agree to that!
I think we should use her as a springboard for discussion. We can overcome her egoism.
I stand affirmed!

 

[CaptainManacles]

So basically I can define someone I really want to use force to stop as "not the same as adults" and then apply the force?

No

What definition of children do you use that can't also be applied to irrational adults?

Not sure how this would work within her philosophy, though I might imagine this would be a good justification for the special treatment of those with major mental disabilities.

So anyway, here's what annoys me. I've read a number of "objectivist ideas" actually, but apparently I'm "doing it wrong". Okay then, explain some objectivist ideas that set the record straight and try to do it objectively. None of this "children are not the same as adults" copouts.

It's not a copout, it's reality.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

So explain it then. You seem to be dodging that. Basically I just have to wonder if it is morally acceptable to abandon children (or the mentally handicapped) and morally unacceptable to punish those that do (as it forces them to care for a parasite). As far as I can tell, those are the consequences of her moral system. If I've misunderstood, could you PLEASE just take the time to EXPLAIN her moral system and how it reconciles the concept of a government sponsered orphanage and health care for the disabled with what appears to be a direct attack on those very institutions?

 

[volatile]

Objectivism is a giant strawman. I sold my copy of Peikoff's book, but from memory there's a section in the first chapter that says "materialists deny the existence of consciousness", which is not even wrong, frankly...

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Objectivism is a giant strawman. I sold my copy of Peikoff's book, but from memory there's a section in the first chapter that says "materialists deny the existence of consciousness", which is not even wrong, frankly...

I'd say it's wrong. More than that though the whole thing seems like some sort of absolute morality "derived logically", but they all seem, as I said before, non-sequiters.

By the way, here's a large portion of my source on Rand philosophy: http://importanceofphilosophy.com/

The whole thing is an egotistical diatribe. I'll note I didn't go into looking into this already with my mind made up. It actually was somewhat appealing at first until I started digging deeper and getting disgusted.

I AM open to being corrected though. I don't want to hear something like "if you didn't get it there's no helping you" or "it's all right there". Those are copouts.

Oh and another thing. Is it just me or does the nature of "benevolence" as defined by Rand seem to amount to me being evil for doing something for someone else unless I'm conciously thinking "this is in my enlightened best interest"? It seems that if I decide to do so because I don't want someone else to suffer without thinking about how it will benefit me down the line somehow, then it's evil. Of course, you can say "but since you did it because you didn't want them to suffer it WAS in your best interests as it alleviated that mental state", but that's a cop out. You just redefined what it means to do something in "your best interest" until it's exactly the same as doing whatever the heck you want, and even doing something because you are guilted into it (since by that definition you are doing it to alleviate a poor mental state) even though as far as I can tell, the Rand system specifically does NOT define "in your best interests" to include "because you feel guilty", and besides that seems like a VERY short-sighted view for a moral system calling itself enlightened. What would differentiate that form of morality from, say, hedonism?

 

[volatile]

I'd say it's wrong. More than that though the whole thing seems like some sort of absolute morality "derived logically", but they all seem, as I said before, non-sequiters.

By the way, here's a large portion of my source on Rand philosophy: http://importanceofphilosophy.com/

The whole thing is an egotistical diatribe. I'll note I didn't go into looking into this already with my mind made up. It actually was somewhat appealing at first until I started digging deeper and getting disgusted.

I agree 100%. I was in the same boat, and some areas of her philosophy seemed interesting in summary. When I started reading it first hand, I got so angry and annoyed with it I sold the book as soon as I could. It's terribly ill-conceived, and, yes, full of those weird non-sequitors.

 

[RobRoy]

How true, Skeptic about the mentality of the Rand-Peikoff cult. Rob Roy, indeed I do. PsyschologiSt, Steven pinker in the New Y

That's one, whose theories are controversial to say the least. You made it sound like you had a laundry list, so do please share. I'm very interested.

Rob Roy, self-interest and altruism go hand in hand in the form of mutual altruism- we wash each other's backs. As Steven Pinker,eminent psychologist, notes:" Nor does reciprocal altruism- the evolutiionary ratinoale behind fairness- imply that people do good deed sin the cynical expectation of repayment down the line.We all know of unrequited good deed ,like tipppiing a waitress in a city you will never visit again and falling on a grenade to save platoonmates."

I've already covered the notion of falling on a grenade. This isn't new territory here.

He starts the article maintaing that Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug [father of the Green Revolution] have been instrumental in helping millions while Mother Teresa merely gave her patrons "dangerously primitive medical care." I think Rand would agree to that!

It's easily arguable that Bill Gates set up his foundation out of a sense of guilt. Quite easily, in fact, since it was pointed out to him that his extreme wealth really didn't serve much purpose, but could be used to help solve any number of the world's problems.

I have no in depth knowledge of Norman Borlaug, so I'll have to do some research and get back to that.

I'm uncertain what your point is on Mother Teresa is, but suffice to say, her giving and dedication was certainly born out a sense of religious duty and a calling from her God.

I think we should use her as a springboard for discussion. We can overcome her egoism.
I stand affirmed!

Sorry. It's nice to say that you "stand affirmed" but you've yet to prove much.

 

[Alric]

This is jsut an opinion.

I have just finished reading Atlas Shrugged and it has to be the worst, most poorly written idealogically driven book i have read since reading the communist manifesto.

Was Rand some kind of nazi idealogist or something?

because that is the impression I have formed of them after reading this book.

With so many replies let me apologize in advance in case this has been discussed already. I have sympathy for the idea at the end of Atlas Shrugged where scientists and engineers and otherwise capable people are fed up with it and leave to make their own society. This is similar, and in reverse, to Douglas Adams story of who the ancestors of humans really are...

You can play the game Bioshock for a possible scenario of how Ayn Rand's society can end up.

 

[CaptainManacles]

So explain it then. You seem to be dodging that.

I'm not dodging, I fail to see what is left that requires explaining.

Basically I just have to wonder if it is morally acceptable to abandon children (or the mentally handicapped) and morally unacceptable to punish those that do (as it forces them to care for a parasite).

That's not really the issue you originally brought up, but as far as I understand it, a child has not yet reached a point of being able to reason, and therefore it is your responsibility to care for their wellbeing up to a point, given that you were the one who chose to bring them into the world. This does not apply so much to the idea of a government sponsored institute for the mentally handicapped, or an orphanage. Neither of these things would be supported.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

That's standard moral thinking about responsibility for a child, but where does Rand's philosophy account for it? Further, I've seen a number of kids who are pretty reasonable. What I've read just states that someone that is not behaving reasonably can be ignored if one so chooses with no guilty feelings, and that to punish someone for failing to take care of them is identical to punishing someone for failing to, say, pay taxes.

So let me ask you this. Let's say orphaneges are shut down and orphans have no where to go. Would it be morally acceptable or morally wrong to set up taxes to create such a system? Would you argue that "the market should decide"? That, say, if no one decides to make an open market "version" of such an institution, "the market has spoken", too bad you bunch of parasite kids?

Could you address everything else I brought up? I've added a number of posts there. I actually need the moral system explained to me. At the very least, tell me if the description on that site is accurate or not. If it isn't, then tell me what it is. Don't assume the description is accurate enough if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions. Correct me.

To say on the one hand I "have it all wrong" and then to say "but I don't feel like explaining what's wrong or what the actual ideals are" is just basically giving up.

 

[CaptainManacles]

That's standard moral thinking about responsibility for a child, but where does Rand's philosophy account for it?

So I just accounted for it as much as standard moral thinking but you demand more accounting just because?

Further, I've seen a number of kids who are pretty reasonable.

I would probably guess that Ayn Rand's age of "it is now morally acceptable to punt them onto the street and let them fend" is lower then most people's. Keep in mind though, it is generally assumed that you probably have some sort of interest in this person's existence/happieness, it's not a moral imperitive to dump kids out on the street once they hit a certain age. Also, we're talking about higher reasoning here, not just "this kid gets good grades in social studies"

What I've read just states that someone that is not behaving reasonably can be ignored if one so chooses with no guilty feelings, and that to punish someone for failing to take care of them is identical to punishing someone for failing to, say, pay taxes.

You've misunderstood. I can ignore reasonable people if I wish too, depending on how you are defining 'ignore'. And I've already pointed out that children do not follow the same rules as adults, and explained why they don't follow the same rules, you seem to still see this as a "cop-out" so I don't know what else to tell you. Apparently "reasoning" is a cop-out to you.

So let me ask you this. Let's say orphaneges are shut down and orphans have no where to go. Would it be morally acceptable or morally wrong to set up taxes to create such a system?

Morally wrong.

Would you argue that "the market should decide"?

Individuals should decide. If there's no one on the planet who is willing and able to care for the kids then they don't get cared for.

That, say, if no one decides to make an open market "version" of such an institution, "the market has spoken", too bad you bunch of parasite kids?

Oh, don't be silly, coal mines are plentiful and understaffed. /sarcasm

It seems that if I decide to do so because I don't want someone else to suffer without thinking about how it will benefit me down the line somehow, then it's evil. Of course, you can say "but since you did it because you didn't want them to suffer it WAS in your best interests as it alleviated that mental state", but that's a cop out. You just redefined what it means to do something in "your best interest" until it's exactly the same as doing whatever the heck you want, and even doing something because you are guilted into it (since by that definition you are doing it to alleviate a poor mental state) even though as far as I can tell, the Rand system specifically does NOT define "in your best interests" to include "because you feel guilty", and besides that seems like a VERY short-sighted view for a moral system calling itself enlightened.

One of Rand's main point was that you should be thinking about how it will benefit yourself down the line no matter what the decision is. You should consciously examine the source of your own desires. But what you've basically done here, is first assume Rand would support the short-sighted decision "do it to alleviate guilt" even though she clearly argues against this, and then accuse her of setting up a short-sighted moral system. She would argue against doing that to alleviate guilt percisely because it's a short-sighted decision, and not in your best long term interests, not selfish, or argue that your assesment of your selfish actions as guilt inducing are incorrect, and it would be easier to alleviate those feelings simply by realizing that selflessness is morally evil.

What would differentiate that form of morality from, say, hedonism?

Long term thinking and an enphasis on acknowledging objective reality when making decisions. Instead of just going "mmm...chocolate *consume*" you go "would I rather be thin healthy good looking with penty of energy or fat and full of chocolate?" But this is covered in like the first part of the first chapter of her first non-fiction book on the subject. I'm skeptical about how much you've really tried to learn about her philosophy.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

So I just accounted for it as much as standard moral thinking but you demand more accounting just because?

What I'm asking for is how Rand's philosophy accounts for it, not just the average person's. The debate is over her philosophy after all, yes?

I would probably guess that Ayn Rand's age of "it is now morally acceptable to punt them onto the street and let them fend" is lower then most people's. Keep in mind though, it is generally assumed that you probably have some sort of interest in this person's existence/happieness, it's not a moral imperitive to dump kids out on the street once they hit a certain age. Also, we're talking about higher reasoning here, not just "this kid gets good grades in social studies"

How about "this kid can figure out magic tricks and point out plot holes in stories"? So basically the judgement on whether or not it's fine to punt a child onto the streets is if you, like some roman emporer, find the child amusing? It may be "generally assumed" but if that favor should wane so would responsibility? If someone realized, through pure logic, that continuing to sustain this child's life was cutting into their own spare time and if they just ditched that kid they could realize their own dreams (a realistic scenario as shown by a number of cases of child murder), would that be acceptable?

You've misunderstood. I can ignore reasonable people if I wish too, depending on how you are defining 'ignore'. And I've already pointed out that children do not follow the same rules as adults, and explained why they don't follow the same rules, you seem to still see this as a "cop-out" so I don't know what else to tell you. Apparently "reasoning" is a cop-out to you.

I haven't seen much of an explanation except to say matter of factly that they are different. They just don't seem to be accounted for at all in Rand philosophy, at least of what I've read. Also I have to note that this egotism is rather prevalant in a lot of Rand philosophy. They make a singular, absolute statement, consider the issue solved, and any challenge is considered by it's very nature "shouting from an illogical dullard", because the issue is SOLVED after all, and any confusion must mean the person is illogical or just an idiot.

Morally wrong.

Individuals should decide. If there's no one on the planet who is willing and able to care for the kids then they don't get cared for.

That sounds like a pretty terrible situation, though admittedly such a situation is very unlikely to happen. Still, it seems like Rand's philosophy just more or less "counts on" random people freely deciding to go against it to sustain itself.

One of Rand's main point was that you should be thinking about how it will benefit yourself down the line no matter what the decision is. You should consciously examine the source of your own desires. But what you've basically done here, is first assume Rand would support the short-sighted decision "do it to alleviate guilt" even though she clearly argues against this, and then accuse her of setting up a short-sighted moral system. She would argue against doing that to alleviate guilt percisely because it's a short-sighted decision, and not in your best long term interests, not selfish, or argue that your assesment of your selfish actions as guilt inducing are incorrect, and it would be easier to alleviate those feelings simply by realizing that selflessness is morally evil.

And here's the crux of the issue. Why do I need to think further than "that person is in trouble!" to decide to help them? Seriously, screw the consequences! Those can be delt with down the road. In the long run we're all dead anyway. Morally evil to do something just to help someone? Seriously? I've never understood how she can conclude this. So it's an emotional response, but as you've said, that seems perfectly acceptable in deciding on your dreams and what art to like (she's factually wrong in concluding there's some absolute standard of "art" by the way). Why not for this? You seem to say "well then why not stuff yourelf with chocolate?" but that's really one big issue. Any moral system that equates an innate response to run and help someone who's drowning (for example) as "morally identical" to stuffing yourself with sweets has seriously got some major problems. How can you even begin to defend something like that? This is exactly my problem. Under this moral code, as you just described it, though a person's life is saved both ways, it's right or wrong based entirely on what I was thinking during the process. It's right if I thought it out over the long term and realized something like "okay so if this person WHO HAS DREAMS AND WISHES TO LIVE JUST LIKE ME is saved then I might be labelled a hero, which is in MY interests, and may repay me down the line, directly or indirectly through contributions to society. Alright, that, and that alone is why I should do this. I'm a moral person now.". It is WRONG if you think "that person is in trouble! I've gotta help!" because, if I get it right, you are doing so out of an emotional response and a feeling that you are obligated to, um, SAVE PEOPLE?

I'm sorry, I can't live my entire life thinking the former. What a hollow and empty existance that would be if I was forcing my brain to work that way. It takes all the enjoyment out of living. Of course, here's your work-around, "Then think the other way because thats in your best interests". The whole system of morality seems completely untennable. I can't believe that that's how you yourself interpret every situation you come across. I'm sure you still do things for other people just to be nice to them.

You see, this is the thing. What I've read really does seem to suggest a system of morality that is far more open to being interpretted in any way the believer would want than some rigid system of codefied "ways to live". Further, all those conclusions on how this leads to that? Bunch of nonsequiters. Why is that that I as "a rational being" (who's definition isn't even factually accurate, we DO in fact live not JUST by our reason alone, but also by the blind continued functioning of our cells and raw physical process, reason is an addendum to that, not the be all end all of how we operate) am forced to conclude ALL this extra stuff? Really though, is that web site I linked accurately representing Rand's views, or isn't it?

 

[CaptainManacles]

What I'm asking for is how Rand's philosophy accounts for it, not just the average person's. The debate is over her philosophy after all, yes?

I really don't know what else you're looking for here.

So basically the judgement on whether or not it's fine to punt a child onto the streets is if you, like some roman emporer, find the child amusing?

How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?

If someone realized, through pure logic, that continuing to sustain this child's life was cutting into their own spare time and if they just ditched that kid they could realize their own dreams (a realistic scenario as shown by a number of cases of child murder), would that be acceptable?

No, I clearly said the opposite of that. What part of "you have a responsibility to care for the child" don't you understand? Reading comprehension not your strong suit? Or are you just so bad at following an arguement that my statement about being legally able to cut a child off at adulthood you somehow interrepted as an endorcement of child murder?

I haven't seen much of an explanation except to say matter of factly that they are different.

Then you are being willfully ignorent, I provided one.

That sounds like a pretty terrible situation, though admittedly such a situation is very unlikely to happen.

Well, if no one on the planet wanted to help those children, it actually wouldn't be a "terrible" situation to any of those people, they'd think it was fine. I think we could come up with reasons why it's objectively bad, but that's not really an arguement against Objectivism, that's an arguement against these hypothetical sociopathic people of the future, who can't be bothered to consider the value gained from taking care of their offspring. If anything, such an arguement would be neccisarily built on a foundation of Objectivism.

If no one on the planet was able to help such children, that would indeed be a terrible situation, but it would be a terrible situation much in the same way as a drought or a flood. The solution is better technology and more resources, philosophies of altruism don't rend orphanages out of some magical pocket in space.

Still, it seems like Rand's philosophy just more or less "counts on" random people freely deciding to go against it to sustain itself.

How so?

And here's the crux of the issue. Why do I need to think further than "that person is in trouble!" to decide to help them? Seriously, screw the consequences! Those can be delt with down the road. In the long run we're all dead anyway.

Well, certainly, no one expects you to sit and ponder the epistimological implications of your actions while a house is burning down. Most of this thinking should be done beforehand, but are you seriously rejecting the notion of thinking at all about the issue? Before? After? During if the time presents itself? Is it seriously a sin in your eyes to apply logic to the idea of whether or not to risk your life for someone else's? Is it always better to sacrifice your life for the someone else because.....you declare it morally so? Speaking of non sequiturs. While it may seem noble to apply this thinking for the issue of saving someone from dying, having this as your moral foundation is obviously absurd. "In the long run we're dead" You're rejecting reason. Good job. Though if you're trying to convince me that Ayn Rand is right, you're doing well, you're making the exact arguements that she mocks but I never thought anyone would honestly present. "In the long run we're dead" is that a joke?

Morally evil to do something just to help someone? I've never understood how she can conclude this.

So you think intending to help someone morally justifies any action you take?

So it's an emotional response, but as you've said, that seems perfectly acceptable in deciding on your dreams and what art to like

When did I say that?

she's factually wrong in concluding there's some absolute standard of "art" by the way

I don't think you understand what the world "factually" means.

Why not for this?

You can't reject logic just because you dislike the conclusions. Thus is the art of woo.

You seem to say "well then why not stuff yourelf with chocolate?" but that's really one big issue. Any moral system that equates an innate response to run and help someone who's drowning (for example) as "morally identical" to stuffing yourself with sweets has seriously got some major problems. How can you even begin to defend something like that?

I didn't equate the two, but I like how you seem to be ignoring my arguements and instead pointing to your own distaste for the conclusions as if they are somehow a counterarguement. "I hate that prepetual motion is impossible, therefore it must exist. Take that science!" I didn't even argue that stuffing yourself with sweets is morally wrong, that's kinda an important point you seem to be missing.

Under this moral code, as you just described it, though a person's life is saved both ways, it's right or wrong based entirely on what I was thinking during the process.

When did I say that what you are thinking during the proccess justifies and action?

I'm sorry, I can't live my entire life thinking the former. What a hollow and empty existance that would be if I was forcing my brain to work that way. It takes all the enjoyment out of living.

Well, your crude characterization asside, you have no idea what you're missing. It's like seeing in color when you've been restrained all your life to black and white. To save someone's life not based on a hopeless "we'll all be dead in the long run" mentality, not based on whim, not based on social programming, but to really and conciously save the life of another human being because your reason tells you that are concious just like you, that they have dreams and wishes just like you, because you want them to live.