A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thank you for proving my point about Rand's critics. This criticism has absolutely no substance, rests on the assumption that we will accept any unevidenced claim merely because it is anti-Rand, and is an Argument from Intimidation.

It's not an argument, it's just a statement. Much as "The Earth is not 6000 years old and creationists are ignorant or dishonest" is not an argument, just a statement.

I'm not terribly interested in giving Rand followers oxygen by treating them as if they were worth engaging with on a philosophical level. They're members of a self-selecting group that I don't find it worth my time to argue with.

 

[MontagK505]

It's not an argument, it's just a statement. Much as "The Earth is not 6000 years old and creationists are ignorant or dishonest" is not an argument, just a statement.

I'm not terribly interested in giving Rand followers oxygen by treating them as if they were worth engaging with on a philosophical level. They're members of a self-selecting group that I don't find it worth my time to argue with.

If your time is so valuable why do you waste time repeating yourself. You've already stated this once.

One of the odd things about Rand is the effect she has on both her followers and her detractors. Many of her followers are fanatics. But her detractors aren't much better.

Her ideas have no large scale political influence.

Conservatives don't like her. Liberals don't like her. Whats to be afraid of?
Her detractors act like religious fundamentalists confronted with an atheist but with less reason.

If a religious fundamentalist makes disagreeable statements, most critics will at least state specifically why they disagree. But with Rand it's: "I'm not terribly interested in giving Rand followers oxygen by treating them as if they were worth engaging with on a philosophical level."
There is a nastiness here that goes beyond merely disagreeing with an idea.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Thank you all for reminding me, yet again, why I don't debate Objectivism on JREF. Not a single one of you "skeptics" has bothered to so much as reference an idea you consider flawed; instead, you consider character assassination to be a sufficient substitute for serious argument. Odd how the skeptical community will accept any shoddy argument so long as it supports certain a priori conclusions.

Alright. I consider the basic idea flawed. It's like Anarchy or Communism: sounds fine on paper but will collapse the moment it hits the real world because it neglects to consider that people are people. In Objectivism's case, even if you start everyone off at the same level it'll reduce to fascism almost immediately, because the most profitable thing for successful people to do is to establish a monopoly and prevent others from competing in any way possible. I've mentioned this to you before, and been told that, well, it wouldn't happen that way, and if I knew anything about Objectivism I wouldn't need to ask that sort of question.

As I don't find that a particularly satisfactory answer, and these threads haven't had much else to discuss except whining about how fanatical your opponents are, what's left but snarky, disinterested advice? Srsly, if you're tired of dealing with character assassinations instead of real discussion, stop holding up someone that people want to shoot. It's that simple.

 

[tsig]

Alright. I consider the basic idea flawed. It's like Anarchy or Communism: sounds fine on paper but will collapse the moment it hits the real world because it neglects to consider that people are people. In Objectivism's case, even if you start everyone off at the same level it'll reduce to fascism almost immediately, because the most profitable thing for successful people to do is to establish a monopoly and prevent others from competing in any way possible. I've mentioned this to you before, and been told that, well, it wouldn't happen that way, and if I knew anything about Objectivism I wouldn't need to ask that sort of question.

As I don't find that a particularly satisfactory answer, and these threads haven't had much else to discuss except whining about how fanatical your opponents are, what's left but snarky, disinterested advice? Srsly, if you're tired of dealing with character assassinations instead of real discussion, stop holding up someone that people want to shoot. It's that simple.

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.


Capitalism as a moral standard = hell in the gulch.


IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

 

[Akri]

In Objectivism's case, even if you start everyone off at the same level it'll reduce to fascism almost immediately, because the most profitable thing for successful people to do is to establish a monopoly and prevent others from competing in any way possible.

And what ways would those be?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And what ways would those be?

What ways can you abuse a monopoly? Are you truly so ignorant of history that you never learned why people have considered them bad since Roman times?

[ETA] And that's not even getting into fascism, which is what happens when you get so rich you can buy your own legislation to make competition legally impossible as well as practically.

 

[Akri]

What ways can you abuse a monopoly?

No, in what ways can an Objectivist prevent competition?

[ETA] And that's not even getting into fascism, which is what happens when you get so rich you can buy your own legislation to make competition legally impossible as well as practically.

Of course, doing so would be a violation of Objectivist ethics...

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>

IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

collectivism means "I want yours, screw you. And I'll use a gun to do it."

 

[shuttlt]

Of course, doing so would be a violation of Objectivist ethics...

Why would it be a violation of objectivism to abuse a monopoly? If it makes me happy to abuse a monopoly, why shouldn't I?

 

[Akri]

Why would it be a violation of objectivism to abuse a monopoly? If it makes me happy to abuse a monopoly, why shouldn't I?

Not sure if joking....

 

[tsig]

collectivism means "I want yours, screw you. And I'll use a gun to do it."

My post never mentioned collectivism.

 

[MontagK505]

Correction:
collectivism = anti-Objectivism = "I want yours, screw you. And I'll use a gun to do it."

 

[Akri]

Correction:
collectivism = anti-Objectivism = "I want yours, screw you. And I'll use a gun to do it."

Not necessarily. Someone could be both a collectivist and a pacifist, for example. Or they could only believe in voluntary collectivism.

 

[tsig]

Correction:
collectivism = anti-Objectivism = "I want yours, screw you. And I'll use a gun to do it."

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[MontagK505]

Not necessarily. Someone could be both a collectivist and a pacifist, for example. Or they could only believe in voluntary collectivism.

Voluntary collectivism would fit within the parameters of Capitalism. As a moral principle Capitalism says you are allowed to keep the benefits of your labor nothing more.
Nothing in Objectivism says "I've got mine.. screw you." as a moral ideal.
Forced collectivism is counter to Objectiviest principles.

The world is far more complex than any philosophical system that claims to describe it. Objectivism isn't the only system that fails this.

 

[MontagK505]

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Very impressive.
So how does that fit in with:
Objectivism means "I've got mine, screw you"? Are you claiming that's the only result?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, in what ways can an Objectivist prevent competition?

Of course, doing so would be a violation of Objectivist ethics...

That's pretty much my point. Establishing oneself as a tribal warlord goes against Anarchist ethics. Setting up a monolithic bureaucracy headed by a dictator is anathema to Communist ethics. But it happens, and rejecting its happening on the basis that these are not true patriots is only acceptable if you're sprinkling sugar on your porridge when you say it.

To borrow from James Madison:
If all men were angels, Objectivism/Communism/Bokononism would work.
If one man were an angel, Monarchy would work.
But no men are angels.

To reiterate my objection: Objectivism neglects to account for people being people. All people. Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits. Even Ron Paul is badgering the UN into appropriating others' hard work for him. We are, all of us, only human.

 

[tsig]

Very impressive.
So how does that fit in with:
Objectivism means "I've got mine, screw you"? Are you claiming that's the only result?

At this point explaining what you mean by Objectivism would help.

 

[MontagK505]

That's pretty much my point. Establishing oneself as a tribal warlord goes against Anarchist ethics. Setting up a monolithic bureaucracy headed by a dictator is anathema to Communist ethics. But it happens, and rejecting its happening on the basis that these are not true patriots is only acceptable if you're sprinkling sugar on your porridge when you say it.

To borrow from James Madison:
If all men were angels, Objectivism/Communism/Bokononism would work.
If one man were an angel, Monarchy would work.
But no men are angels.

To reiterate my objection: Objectivism neglects to account for people being people. All people. Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits. Even Ron Paul is badgering the UN into appropriating others' hard work for him. We are, all of us, only human.

Which why nothing seems to work.
If people were social insects Communism would probably work
If people were perfectly rational Objectivism would probably work.
If engineers were perfect engineers things would only have to be designed once.
If pigs had wings........................
etc.

 

[Akri]

That's pretty much my point. Establishing oneself as a tribal warlord goes against Anarchist ethics. Setting up a monolithic bureaucracy headed by a dictator is anathema to Communist ethics. But it happens, and rejecting its happening on the basis that these are not true patriots is only acceptable if you're sprinkling sugar on your porridge when you say it.

It's not a No True Scottsman if there's actually a valid reason to say that someone isn't part of a particular group. And not following a philosophy is a valid reason to say that someone isn't actually a follower of that philosophy (or, at the very least, that they're not following it when they do the things that violate the philosophy).

Objectivism neglects to account for people being people. All people. Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits. Even Ron Paul is badgering the UN into appropriating others' hard work for him. We are, all of us, only human.

If the existence of hypocrites is a flaw in Objectivism then all philosophies are flawed.