A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Sword of Apollo]

Dr. Gregory Sadler of Marist College recently discussed Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness in his Spring 2013 Ethics class and posted the video to YouTube:



I remember that my professor in Philosophy 101 discussed Ayn Rand and that the textbook had an excerpt from the introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness. But I don't think that my professor was as good at explaining Rand as Dr. Sadler is.

I do have a couple of critiques of his presentation, though:

Regarding 51:27, Rand considers virtues eminently practical. A breach of integrity has very real, self-destructive consequences in the long-term. There is no gap between morally principled action and practical action. (Practical for achieving long-term flourishing.)
Also, contrary to 52:48, Rand wouldn't say the choice of friends/lovers is arbitrary, but ought to depend on their objective virtues/values. Vicious people harm one's own life when you're involved with them; virtuous people typically benefit one's own life.
---
Did anyone else have philosophy professors who discussed Rand? If so, what did they teach about her philosophy?

 

[Mister Agenda]

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

Quite. I somehow get the feeling that her "goal" was to be able to dismiss ordinary altruism by equivocating it with Rand-altruism.

 

[Akri]

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

In the case of altruism she wasn't using her own definition, but Comte's.

And honestly, people being bothered because Rand used uncommon definitions of words seems silly to me. It's like complaining that scientists use the word "theory" differently than everybody else does. Yeah it can make communication a tad difficult if you aren't familiar with the jargon, but so long as everyone defines their terms (which Rand did) there shouldn't be any problem.

 

[Dinwar]

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

She didn't use "her own peculiar definitions of words". She was fairly diligent in pointing to where she got the definitions from, and in using the original definitions. She also justified her use of those original definitions, repeatedly. The fact that most people use the words very sloppily does not reflect negatively on her, any more than misuse of medical terms makes doctors who use them properly bad doctors.

Besides, name a single philosopher who hasn't done this to some extent. Philosophy is a dicipline with its own jargon. You may as well tell paleontologists they aren't rigorous because to them "character" is synonymous with "trait", not "part of a play".

I've yet to encounter a philosophy professor that dealt with Rand at all. Most simply ignore her. Those that do discuss her tend to dismiss her as one of the crackpots that came out of that era. Considering most of philosophy (particularly postmodernism), all I can say is "You asked for it, brothers!"

 

[Craig24]

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

With respect to 'altruism', as another poster has already stated, Rand was using the term as it's originator (August Comte) meant it to be used (see wikipedia entry for altruism).

 

[Gazpacho]

I've yet to encounter a philosophy professor that dealt with Rand at all. Most simply ignore her. Those that do discuss her tend to dismiss her as one of the crackpots that came out of that era. Considering most of philosophy (particularly postmodernism), all I can say is "You asked for it, brothers!"

What is this supposed to mean? Who are the brothers in question, and what did they ask for that Rand gave them? I know you're coyly quoting a particular scene in Atlas Shrugged but that is not my question.

Bona fide philosophical engagements with Rand's ideas are available if you know where to look, and that's not just free-market ideological organizations. The discussion is not all flattering nor should it be. She was a human being capable of error, notwithstanding the ARI's mystifications to the contrary.

 

[Gazpacho]

It doesn't help, for the purposes of "legitimizing" Rand, if her fans choose to follow her example (e.g. in her discussions of Skinner and Nietzsche) of responding to critique with moral denunciation of the critic.

 

[Akri]

It doesn't help, for the purposes of "legitimizing" Rand, if her fans choose to follow her example (e.g. in her discussions of Skinner and Nietzsche) of responding to critique with moral denunciation of the critic.

Why does it matter what Rand's fans do? How do their actions impact whether her statements are true or false?

She was a human being capable of error, notwithstanding the ARI's mystifications to the contrary.

I've never seen anyone argue that Rand wasn't capable of error.

 

[Dinwar]

It doesn't help, for the purposes of "legitimizing" Rand, if her fans choose to follow her example (e.g. in her discussions of Skinner and Nietzsche) of responding to critique with moral denunciation of the critic.

When her detractors stop making moral attacks on me, I'll stop making moral attacks on them. No one EVER criticizes Rand's critics for making exactly the same kinds of arguments--or even far worse arguments--that people scream at O'ists for making.

What is this supposed to mean?...I know you're coyly quoting a particular scene in Atlas Shrugged but that is not my question.

Actually, I'm quoting her non-fiction works. Specifically, her discussions of modern philosophy in "The Anti-Industrial Revolution". If you'd read the book, you'd 1) know vastly more about O'ism than most of Rand's detractors, and 2) would understand the sentiment I was working towards in the quote.

Bona fide philosophical engagements with Rand's ideas are available if you know where to look, and that's not just free-market ideological organizations. The discussion is not all flattering nor should it be. She was a human being capable of error, notwithstanding the ARI's mystifications to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but it's incredibly damaging to your credibility to criticize people who's job is to promote an idea for not presenting flaws in that idea. It should come as no surprise--they're obviously and necessarily going to emphasize the things that Rand got right.

As for legitimate criticisms (let's not get bogged down in bone fides; they amount to ad hom arguments in nearly every case), you're right, they do exist. So do oasises, yet people still die in deserts from lack of water. The overwhelming majority of criticisms of Rand's ideas are childish, pathetic, and completely devoid of actual substance. Most of them amount to "I can't believe you'd agree with that!" with no further follow-up. It's rare to find someone who is aware of Rand's non-fiction works who isn't a fan. How can you criticize a philosopher while being willfully and proudly unaware of her philosophy?

Are all her detractors like that? No. But the majority of them are, and it's not unfare of us supporters to ask that her detractors get their house in order before we engage them. If you can predict, with statistically significant certainty, that your opponent is willfully ignorant of your position and is going to resort to mudslinging out the gate, you either avoid the debate or go into politics.

Bear in mind, I've criticized Rand's views on things. Neither I nor any Objectivist I've met considers Rand infalliable. We merely consider her extremely good at integration and to consequently have constructed an extremely good philosophy.

 

[Akri]

Actually, I'm quoting her non-fiction works. Specifically, her discussions of modern philosophy in "The Anti-Industrial Revolution". If you'd read the book, you'd 1) know vastly more about O'ism than most of Rand's detractors, and 2) would understand the sentiment I was working towards in the quote.

Not sure if I've read that one. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

[Gazpacho]

Why does it matter what Rand's fans do? How do their actions impact whether her statements are true or false?

They impact the ability to have a conversation.

I've never seen anyone argue that Rand wasn't capable of error.

Then you haven't watched the antics of the ARI very much. Leonard Peikoff has carried out anti-revisionist purges that would make Enver Hoxha beam with pride. The first task was to establish within the organization that no disagreement with Rand could be entertained. He has since moved on to suppressing disagreement with himself as Rand's designated representative.

 

[Akri]

They impact the ability to have a conversation.

This feels like a goalpost shift.

Then you haven't watched the antics of the ARI very much.

Fair enough--I haven't watched the ARI at all.

 

[Gazpacho]

This feels like a goalpost shift.

The shift was on your end, I'm afraid, when you switched from "Why don't philosophers engage with Rand?" to "Is she right or wrong?"

What I object to in the responses of Objectivists to outside philosophers is the "otherizing" tendency, the eagerness to see in any dispute with Rand's syllogisms the same "anti-man" motives as every other. And you can plead that you don't do this, but other Objectivists do, following Rand's own example.

 

[Akri]

The shift was on your end, I'm afraid, when you switched from "Why don't philosophers engage with Rand?" to "Is she right or wrong?"

I thought that "legitimizing Rand" was referring to addressing whether her ideas are right or wrong (or at least, whether her ideas are worth discussing at all). I don't see how the actions of her fans have anything to do with Rand herself or her philosophy.

 

[Reivax]

One argument I recently came across against Ethical Egoism is:

1. Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference between the members of the group that justifies treating them differently.

2. Ethical Egoism would have each person assign greater importance to his or her own interests than to the interests of others. But there is no general difference between oneself and others, to which each person can appeal, that justifies the difference in treatment.

3. Therefore, Ethical Egoism is unacceptably arbitrary.

Just found it in a book called The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels lying around the house.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

One argument I recently came across against Ethical Egoism is:



Just found it in a book called The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels lying around the house.

Basically. This is why I've always felt that Objectivism is a misnomer, as it should be Subjectivism .

 

[Earthborn]

I do have a couple of critiques of his presentation, though:

I can think of a few others: he misrepresents the subjectivist/moral relativist position by saying that it is something one might base one's ethics on, while it actually claims that basing one's ethics on anything other than one's subjective preferences is impossible.

Furthermore the argument that humans are special because they have "reason" is based on a medieval notion of a hierarchy of nature. It is not objective reality, but a common subjective notion that humans tend to have.

A breach of integrity has very real, self-destructive consequences in the long-term. There is no gap between morally principled action and practical action.

Only if a person is capable of recognising their own "breaches of integrity" and are also able to accurately predict the long-term consequences of their actions.

Vicious people harm one's own life when you're involved with them; virtuous people typically benefit one's own life.

This assumes that these are two separate categories of people.

That people wouldn't think quite as ill of her if she hadn't used her own peculiar definitions of words in common usage; like selfish (enlightened self-interest) and altruistic (self-sacrifice for no reward whatsoever, not even love or satisfaction).

I think the most serious redefinition is the one that she named her philosophy for. The name Objectivism suggests that she talks about objective reality, but instead it is about her own subjective values.

One argument I recently came across against Ethical Egoism is:

I don't think it is a very good argument against it; premise 1 assumes that a there is a objective moral doctrine, premise 2 basically leaves morality up to each person's own subjective ideas of what their interests are. At most it shows that "Objectivism" is a misnomer, and Ethical Egoism is a subjectivist philosophy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The overwhelming majority of criticisms of Rand's ideas are childish, pathetic, and completely devoid of actual substance. Most of them amount to "I can't believe you'd agree with that!" with no further follow-up. It's rare to find someone who is aware of Rand's non-fiction works who isn't a fan. How can you criticize a philosopher while being willfully and proudly unaware of her philosophy?

Are all her detractors like that? No. But the majority of them are, and it's not unfare of us supporters to ask that her detractors get their house in order before we engage them.

Are you going to address the thread topic, the arguments made by the philosophy professor, at some point?

Also the reason Rand isn't normally discussed in philosophy courses is that her ideas are, philosophically speaking, juvenile and not worth engaging with. It's the same reason nobody talks about the Eye of Argon in English literature classes.

 

[Buckaroo]

Also the reason Rand isn't normally discussed in philosophy courses is that her ideas are, philosophically speaking, juvenile and not worth engaging with. It's the same reason nobody talks about the Eye of Argon in English literature classes.

Heh. Had to look that one up, and now having learned its reputation I desperately want to read it.