Ayn Rand versus Religion

[bunsinspace]

Open question to all free thinkers:

In Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace in the 50's (availble online) she mentioned that she can find no rationale for helping one who is less fortunate then oneself. It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution (in Ayn's world-view, for instance, Stephen Hawking would necessarily have perished in 1974 when ALS ravaged his body and the human race would have been deprived of his later work.)

 

[Manopolus]

I'm not sure what you are saying with the "versus religion" part. Lack of religion doesn't make you a psychopath, nor does it make you lacking in empathy. Quite the opposite, actually. Please explain the title? This is so ignorant it's hardly worth responding to.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath who wrote a rapist as a heroic character and his rape victim as the villain (for you know, making him go through the trouble of raping her when she secretly really wanted it), and who ultimately completely abandoned her entire philosophy. Who cares what she has to say about anything?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath who wrote a rapist as a heroic character and his rape victim as the villain (for you know, making him go through the trouble of raping her when she secretly really wanted it), and who ultimately completely abandoned her entire philosophy. Who cares what she has to say about anything?

Though I agree with you wrt Rand and her Randian philosophy, the answer might just be, "Know your enemy".

 

[Fnord]

Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath who wrote a rapist as a heroic character and his rape victim as the villain (for you know, making him go through the trouble of raping her when she secretly really wanted it), and who ultimately completely abandoned her entire philosophy. Who cares what she has to say about anything?

Besides, she's dead. I developed my own views on Meritocracy vs. Socialism before I had ever picked up one of her books, and that was long after she had died.

 

[MontagK505]

Open question to all free thinkers:

In Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace in the 50's (availble online) she mentioned that she can find no rationale for helping one who is less fortunate then oneself. It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution (in Ayn's world-view, for instance, Stephen Hawking would necessarily have perished in 1974 when ALS ravaged his body and the human race would have been deprived of his later work.)

I've haven't seen the Mike Wallace interview. I've read a lot of Ayn Rand's writings. She was opposed to altruism as a moral requirement. However, if you want to help someone no one should stop you. Nor do you have the right to initiate harm to others.

 

[Cainkane1]

I've haven't seen the Mike Wallace interview. I've read a lot of Ayn Rand's writings. She was opposed to altruism as a moral requirement. However, if you want to help someone no one should stop you. Nor do you have the right to initiate harm to others.

This isn't as bad as the OP statement. I'm an atheist but I donate what I can to abused children.

 

[MontagK505]

Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath who wrote a rapist as a heroic character and his rape victim as the villain (for you know, making him go through the trouble of raping her when she secretly really wanted it), and who ultimately completely abandoned her entire philosophy. Who cares what she has to say about anything?

Rand, like a lot of Russian novelists had a habit of constructing characters out of physiological extremes. If you read the Roark / Dominic characters in context, Roark can't really connect to people except through his work. Dominic is emotionally screwed up as well. Earlier, she destroys art work she owns because she can't stand the thought of other people having seen it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Open question to all free thinkers:

In Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace in the 50's (availble online) she mentioned that she can find no rationale for helping one who is less fortunate then oneself. It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution (in Ayn's world-view, for instance, Stephen Hawking would necessarily have perished in 1974 when ALS ravaged his body and the human race would have been deprived of his later work.)

Kind of a false dichotomy there. Rand and religion are both absolutely rigid belief systems that support no debate on ethics and rather depend on revealed truth for its ethics.

The only difference is in the belief in the supernatural really.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've haven't seen the Mike Wallace interview. I've read a lot of Ayn Rand's writings. She was opposed to altruism as a moral requirement. However, if you want to help someone no one should stop you. Nor do you have the right to initiate harm to others.

But of course it is wonderful when you can take advantage of situations to extort others. Like if I have an epipen and you are dying of anaphylatic shock, I can demand as much payment as I want and have no responsibility to actually treat you unless you agree to my terms. Think about how profitable this would make emergency medicine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Open question to all free thinkers:

In Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace in the 50's (availble online) she mentioned that she can find no rationale for helping one who is less fortunate then oneself. It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution (in Ayn's world-view, for instance, Stephen Hawking would necessarily have perished in 1974 when ALS ravaged his body and the human race would have been deprived of his later work.)

I don't believe that is Rand's view about Hawking. I think you need to read a bit more about her views.

 

[MontagK505]

But of course it is wonderful when you can take advantage of situations to extort others. Like if I have an epipen and you are dying of anaphylatic shock, I can demand as much payment as I want and have no responsibility to actually treat you unless you agree to my terms. Think about how profitable this would make emergency medicine.

The reverse of that argument is if you are compelled to treat / pay for / etc. etc. etc. what does that make you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've haven't seen the Mike Wallace interview. I've read a lot of Ayn Rand's writings. She was opposed to altruism as a moral requirement. However, if you want to help someone no one should stop you. Nor do you have the right to initiate harm to others.

She also defined altruism as helping someone at a cost to yourself with no gain. So if you cared about a person and you helped them, that was not altruism, that was in your self interest because you cared about the person. (Source: her interview in ~1974 on the Phil Donahue Show, also available online on Youtube.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

The reverse of that argument is if you are compelled to treat / pay for / etc. etc. etc. what does that make you?

Someone who abides by the Hippocratic oath? Someone who abides by the legal requirements of the job they chose? An EMT?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But of course it is wonderful when you can take advantage of situations to extort others. Like if I have an epipen and you are dying of anaphylatic shock, I can demand as much payment as I want and have no responsibility to actually treat you unless you agree to my terms. Think about how profitable this would make emergency medicine.

Not one of the better aspects of Rand's philosophy.

 

[MontagK505]

Someone who abides by the Hippocratic oath? Someone who abides by the legal requirements of the job they chose? An EMT?

None of which involve compulsion.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I liked Rand's books, and think her philosophy is neat, I learned some things from it. It's sad that she went insane and her followers, like sheep, agreed with her every whim.

Any philosophy can be ruined when you take it to absolutes, and make it The One True Way.

 

[MontagK505]

She also defined altruism as helping someone at a cost to yourself with no gain. So if you cared about a person and you helped them, that was not altruism, that was in your self interest because you cared about the person. (Source: her interview in ~1974 on the Phil Donahue Show, also available online on Youtube.)

I believe she opposed the idea, that some philosophers held, that the only truly moral act was altruistic.

 

[Nova Land]

... Rand and religion are both absolutely rigid belief systems that support no debate on ethics and rather depend on revealed truth for its ethics...

That's incorrect. While religions can be based on absolutely rigid belief systems, rigid dogmatism is not inherent to religion any more than it is to atheism.

It is unfortunate that rigid dogmatism has been (and continues to be) common enough among religious people that people like you can mistake it for an inherent property of religion. But it isn't. I'm religious, and I have no problem with people considering and debating ethical questions. I was raised to consider that to be a good thing.

This is not an attitude unique to any one religion. I know many religious folks, of a variety of religions, who believe that it is good for people to ponder moral questions -- and that it is better for people to make moral choices based on considering matters thoughtfully for themselves than to blindly follow what they believe has been laid down for them by others.

There's a quotation from Margaret Fell which I've often heard repeated and which seems apt. It was, for instance, one of the inspirations for Grace Jantzen in the writing of her book Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion.

Margaret Fell, feisty champion of Quakers who astounded seventeenth-century English proprieties by insisting on class and gender equality, once told of how she came to the turning-point which set her on her justice-seeking path. She was brought to confront the question of her own authority: "You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say?"

As she quickly recognized, it was no good knowing only what others have said, no matter how prestigious or authoritative or even religious they were. It was insufficient even if she also knew how they might be criticized. Unless she could find her own voice, discern what she could say, she would be living her life at second hand, speaking in someone else's voice.

 

[Twiler]

I thought objectivism sounded interesting until I found about all the unjustified assumptions. It seems to be based on a lack of imagination.