A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Mister Agenda]

In the real world, it does violate zoning laws just about everywhere in the U.S. Most towns have building height limits, and zoning rules contain discretionary and sometimes vague terms such as "consistent with the character of the neighborhood." Permission must be obtained from the EPA and many other bureaucratic entities, and the builder has the burden of proof that all the requirements of each one are met. In theory, the appearance of the building should have no effect on most of them, but in practice, an unpopular design that raises community and public opposition will result in potentially insurmountable delays and obstacles. Laws concerning public advertising displays, air navigation hazards, movement of heavy equipment on local roads, noise, and a hundred other matters could end up in play.

Now, my impression has been that Objectivists oppose some of those laws and processes, because they impede the free use of one's own private property. If I was wrong about that, and Objectivists are actually quite happy with the way things currently are, then never mind (except, to avoid further confusion, let's rename them Ayokayists or something).

Respectfully,
Myriad

Objectivists tend to argue about zoning laws, some are totally against them, some take the view that if you bought the land knowing the restrictions on it, you have to deal with it. I don't think Objectivism inherently prohibits zoning laws, but it at least would take a minimalist view of them: no more zoning that absolutely necessary. Of couse, what's absolutely necessary is subjective.

Although the extreme example of Ronossus is unlikely in OW, it's certainly possible for someone to do something that reduces property values and not be liable for it. I'm not an O'ist, but they don't propose a world in which there are only win/win solutions: such a world is impossible.

 

[remirol]

You already live in a world where your neighbor (unless bound by a neighborhood pact) can do something that reduces your property values, and as long as they don't violate zoning regulations and building codes, there's not a thing you can do about it. May I conclude that you think it is foolish to own a home? Bearing in mind that there's nothing in Objectivism that says you can't have zoning, building codes, or neighborhood associations.

When you have to tell someone what they think in order to post, that's a good indicator that you're using what's called a "strawman". Hope this helps.

Correcting your assumption: that would be why I live in a neighborhood with at least a minimal HOA, and would not purchase a home in one without. I have experienced crappy neighbors in the past and having no recourse against them is quite unfortunate; luckily I was only renting, and it was the actual landlord who was taking it on the chin.

There are a number of other criteria I will use when selecting a future home; income in the area, crime rate, quite a lot of things are required to make sure you end up somewhere that it's OK to live, and indeed caveat emptor is appropriate to a degree.

However, it seems from responses in this thread that Objectivists would be against the city-wide zoning ordinances that currently prohibit (sans HOA) any sort of Ronossus abomination, because that would be "government regulating social welfare" -- others have told me that I have no right to my home's value not being artifically trashed by the weenie next door who wants to keep broken cars up on blocks in his yard. Indeed, it's not a "right" as defined in, say, the Bill of Rights, but by the same token it is clearly a circumstance that society has agreed is a Bad Thing™; in short, it's not possible to foresee everything that your neighbor might do, and so there are construction zoning laws, HOAs, and the like so that people might have at least _some_ confidence that when they purchase a house, they're not just throwing six figures of money down the drain.

I think zoning laws are, generally, a good thing, for numerous reasons. I also think that city governments serve a purpose, and "social welfare" also has a purpose which is beneficial to society. I think that hanging everyone out to dry on their own (as Objectivism seems to be primarily about) requires people to spend so much time protecting themselves from the malicious elements in society that they can't accomplish much else, and therefore it produces a really crappy society, but a great excuse for Objectivists to be all "I got mine, so **** you" while still benefitting from the established non-Objectivist society and its associated plusses.

 

[marplots]

Did Rand ever address how the retarded or insane fall into the mix, if they do?

What I'm getting at is that, under an altruistic morality, I have a burden to care for other humans which are not capable of caring for themselves. In a scheme that uses rational self interest and promotes freedom from outside interference, how are humans dealt with who have a diminished capacity for rationality or no motivation/skill to competently use their rights?

This isn't a loaded question or meant to be judgmental, I'm just trying to figure out the consequences in a formulaic, mathematical style.

(I'm still working on the practical differences between Objectivism and other "brands.")

 

[remirol]

Did Rand ever address how the retarded or insane fall into the mix, if they do?

What I'm getting at is that, under an altruistic morality, I have a burden to care for other humans which are not capable of caring for themselves. In a scheme that uses rational self interest and promotes freedom from outside interference, how are humans dealt with who have a diminished capacity for rationality or no motivation/skill to competently use their rights?

The society wouldn't prevent anyone from caring for them, so what could happen is that someone could set up a care center or Bedlam or something which would arrange for assistance as needed, and those who had an emotional interest in those people being cared for would help fund that center and pay its bills, while everyone else could either contribute to the center or not, as they chose.

I didn't use the word "Bedlam" by accident.

 

[Dinwar]

Did Rand ever address how the retarded or insane fall into the mix, if they do?

She did. She said "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped." What this means is, where possible, individuals should help volunterily. This happens quite frequently today, and frankly there's money to be made off it (my sister works in such a place), so it's not unlikely that institutions to help such people will arise. ("Institution" here is meant in the sense that corporations and universities are institutions, not in the sense of institutionalization.) Generally, I believe the next of kin (or some other agreed-upon party) would be responsible for the invalid, to the extent that the invalid is incapable of being responsible for themselves (this is an extension of a parent's obligation to care for a child--their obligation deminishes as the child's ability to handle their own lives increases). What I mean is, some autistic people function just fine, with a little help with certain things, while others are incapable of functioning, and those objective differences need to be addressed. The basic rule of thumb would be, to my mind, that we assume a person is capable of doing something until evidence is presented to the contrary.

There will be some that are incapable of living in society without harming others. Unfortunately, those will probably end up in prisons or other forms of incarceration. These are still humans, though--we're not talking 1800s asylums, but rather "prisons" where the inmates are treated for thier illnesses. Prisons are a legitimate roll of the government, and people would only be arrested upon suspicion of specific violations of someone's rights (ideally only for actual violations, but again, I'm no utopian). So we're not talking about police sweeping the streets for these people--if they live on the streets but don't harm anyone, they'd be left alone. If they DO harm someone and are proven in court to be mentally handicapped that handicap will need to be addressed, as the principle of justice requires.

The point is, no one would be FORCED to help these people. You couldn't come to me and demand I help your autistic brother, which is what current social wellfare taxes essentially amount to. Prisons are a different issue, as discussed above, and yes, I'm aware of the complications of financing a government. That's another issue entirely, and one of the hot-button ones in Objectivism.

 

[Akri]

Did Rand ever address how the retarded or insane fall into the mix, if they do?

I believe it comes down to voluntary charity. The families of such people (I'm assuming that we're talking about people who are unable to care for themselves) may choose to care for them, either paying for doctors and medication and whatnot out of pocket or by utilizing charitable donations. If there was no family willing to care for the person then their would be other privately-owned organizations that would do so. These might be extensions of hospitals, or separate shelters designed specifically for this purpose.

What I'm getting at is that, under an altruistic morality, I have a burden to care for other humans which are not capable of caring for themselves.

Under Objectivism you have no burden to care for anyone else unless you choose to take on that burden (so if you agree to become the legal guardian of someone then you DO have the burden of caring for them).

That said, someone acting off of their rational self-interest is probably going to want to support a system where those incapable of caring for themselves are taken care of. You might get into a bad accident and become unable to care for yourself. You might have a kid who is born with severe defects and be unable to care for them entirely on your own.

This isn't a loaded question or meant to be judgmental, I'm just trying to figure out the consequences in a formulaic, mathematical style.

It's a good question. As someone who has dealt with mental illness/disability, I wouldn't give Objectivism a second's thought if it was unable to address the problem of how to care for such people.

 

[Buckaroo]

I seem to have missed the part of O'ism where zoning and building codes are prohibited. Would you reference it, please? O'ism isn't a subset of anarchism.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control." (Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, page 19)

(Bolding mine)

Now perhaps you can explain how the existence of zoning and building codes are compatible with Rand's conception of the proper role of government.

ETA: Though I'm unlikely to reply, as I'm pretty much just in this thread for the lulz.

 

[remirol]

That said, someone acting off of their rational self-interest is probably going to want to support a system where those incapable of caring for themselves are taken care of. You might get into a bad accident and become unable to care for yourself. You might have a kid who is born with severe defects and be unable to care for them entirely on your own.

Alternately, I might let all the bleeding-heart suckers pay for that sort of thing and play the odds, which is that neither of these things are very likely to happen to me at all. Rational? No, but we have people who would choose not to pay for various types of insurance in this country already (car liability insurance == #1) because they think they're bulletproof; that wouldn't change under an O-ist society (people aren't smart), so again we see where the lack of government intervention in social welfare starts to create a real problem.

It's a good question. As someone who has dealt with mental illness/disability, I wouldn't give Objectivism a second's thought if it was unable to address the problem of how to care for such people.

I'll repeat my one word: Bedlam. That's Objectivism's solution.

 

[Dinwar]

My understanding is that in Objectivism, zoning laws would be considered immoral--they are a form of collective ownership. That said, there are all KINDS of ways to punish someone for doing something stupid. You have no more right to my electricity than to my money, so if you do something I don't like I don't have to sell you power. It's not a rights violation, merely a choice on the part of the property owners (the property being electricity).

And O'ism doesn't forbid public protests, it merely requires that we acknowledge them for what they are: the opinions of third parties, who have no say in what finally happens. What I mean is, you can write as many Letters to the Editor as you want, post signs on your property saying you hate the building, go on national TV and say "This building is an eyesore and should be destroyed, and the architect should be fired", or anything like that. What you CANNOT do is say "I don't like it, so you can't do it", at least not without buying an interest in the firm(s) involved.

That said, yeah, there's some pretty intense debate on this topic.

That said, someone acting off of their rational self-interest is probably going to want to support a system where those incapable of caring for themselves are taken care of.

Again, many people enjoy this type of work. And there's nothing inherently immoral about it. Many of my relatives are involved in volunteer EMS services, and I've got a sister who's employed by a private firm looking after invalids. The only thing O'ists object to is ENFORCED cherity. VOLUNTERY cherity, or helping others for profit, are held as one's right. Even Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart engaged in charity in Atlas Shrugged; it's the fact that it was voluntary that makes it moral.

 

[marplots]

I think I can see why Objectivism sometimes gets such a negative reaction. From the responses above, it seems to follow that there is no ethical burden/duty to care for the aged, infirm, incapacitated and so on. This strikes directly at an emotional mirroring, since I can imagine myself becoming infirm through a variety of routes.

The "out" that some will care for this class, not because they are forced to do it, but because they value human life seems to slide back into a reliance on altruism emerging, not as a demand, but as a matter of course.

It's a bit of a nuance to say that I could voluntarily sign on to a system of insurance or social welfare to mitigate the risk, and then say this is different than the social contract where I've signed on voluntarily to live under the laws of the current system. I do get the difference in onus, but it seems like the answer to moral dilemmas will be: "You are not prevented, nor forced, to use the same solutions that already exist."

Pragmatically, it seems like we could have exactly the same system we have now and you couldn't tell if it were Objectivists who simply agreed to it or non-Objectivists who thought altruism moral. After all, don't I agree to participate in the system as is? Surely, I can live outside of it if I choose to and suffer the consequences.

Do the outcomes of an Objectivist philosophy depend on human beings being virtuous in the sense of caring about others without regard to a plurality? In other words, does Objectivism as a practical system need voluntarily acts toward caring and compassion on an individual basis? For example, I assume that cruelty to animals wouldn't be defined as such under Objectivism and whatever animal welfare matters arise, that would be dependent on evaluation by individuals instead of a matter of imposed policy?

 

[Akri]

Again, many people enjoy this type of work.

That's a good point. I know someone who is a social worker because she likes helping families that are struggling.

And if there's one thing Desert Bus has taught me, it's that charity can be all kinds of fun

 

[remirol]

I think I can see why Objectivism sometimes gets such a negative reaction. From the responses above, it seems to follow that there is no ethical burden/duty to care for the aged, infirm, incapacitated and so on. This strikes directly at an emotional mirroring, since I can imagine myself becoming infirm through a variety of routes.

The "out" that some will care for this class, not because they are forced to do it, but because they value human life seems to slide back into a reliance on altruism emerging, not as a demand, but as a matter of course.

And that reliance flies directly in the face of recorded history, too. I'll forbear from continuously repeating it, but let's just say that reliance on altruism is how the old-fashioned poorhouses and "certain institutions that start with B" came about in the first place.

Oooh, or the company store! I wonder if Objectivism has any answer for the company store/company town scenario, where you live in the company town and get paid in scrip, which you can only redeem at the company store, which OF COURSE will issue credit, but... well... you know.

I bet it does. I bet it says "Don't work for that company in the first place". The exercise can be left to the reader as to why such arrangements led to the rise of certain labor laws. Darn government interfering in social welfare.

 

[Mister Agenda]

When you have to tell someone what they think in order to post, that's a good indicator that you're using what's called a "strawman". Hope this helps.

I didn't really think you wouldn't buy a home just because there's a chance someone could do something that drives your property values down...that would be silly, and I don't think you're silly. However, that is the position you said you would take under O'ism.

Correcting your assumption: that would be why I live in a neighborhood with at least a minimal HOA, and would not purchase a home in one without. I have experienced crappy neighbors in the past and having no recourse against them is quite unfortunate; luckily I was only renting, and it was the actual landlord who was taking it on the chin.

You and O'ists seem to be in agreement in this case as to the best course of action to protect your interests.

There are a number of other criteria I will use when selecting a future home; income in the area, crime rate, quite a lot of things are required to make sure you end up somewhere that it's OK to live, and indeed caveat emptor is appropriate to a degree.

That seems like a very rational approach.

However, it seems from responses in this thread that Objectivists would be against the city-wide zoning ordinances that currently prohibit (sans HOA) any sort of Ronossus abomination, because that would be "government regulating social welfare" -- others have told me that I have no right to my home's value not being artifically trashed by the weenie next door who wants to keep broken cars up on blocks in his yard. Indeed, it's not a "right" as defined in, say, the Bill of Rights, but by the same token it is clearly a circumstance that society has agreed is a Bad Thing™; in short, it's not possible to foresee everything that your neighbor might do, and so there are construction zoning laws, HOAs, and the like so that people might have at least _some_ confidence that when they purchase a house, they're not just throwing six figures of money down the drain.

And perhaps my understanding of O'ism breaks down here. I have heard O'ists argue on both sides of zoning issues, and think there is a reasonable middle ground: zoning laws need to be challenged when they are unjustified or unfair. I can't say for certain what is the definitive O'ist position because I'm not at all sure there is one for this matter. My breaks with O'ism are at different points than yours, I think your hypotheticals can be addressed...unless I'm wrong about zoning laws not being totally incompatible with O'ism.

I think zoning laws are, generally, a good thing, for numerous reasons. I also think that city governments serve a purpose, and "social welfare" also has a purpose which is beneficial to society. I think that hanging everyone out to dry on their own (as Objectivism seems to be primarily about) requires people to spend so much time protecting themselves from the malicious elements in society that they can't accomplish much else, and therefore it produces a really crappy society, but a great excuse for Objectivists to be all "I got mine, so **** you" while still benefitting from the established non-Objectivist society and its associated plusses.

There's a difference between thinking people shouldn't be forced to support others against their will and thinking people shouldn't help the unfortunate. Nevertheless, this is one of the points where I break with O'ism, it does not address or incorporate aspects of human nature such as compassion or empathy except to say they're okay as long as they're not coerced; but they're hardwired features of a normally functioning human brain and the philosophy is incomplete to the degree that this isn't recognized. Randian heroes seem sociopathic because she didn't understand that empathy is necessary to moral behavior. I am uncomfortable with forcing others to be charitable through taxation for social programs, but I am more uncomfortable with hanging the people who depend on them 'out to dry'. In fact, I am comfortable with more social spending on the short term if it is results-based and focused on reducing the number of people dependent on assistance: real anti-poverty programs. On the other hand, one reason why I volunteer and give as much as I do is that I feel that second-hand charity through the government doesn't count as genuine charity.

 

[Akri]

I think I can see why Objectivism sometimes gets such a negative reaction. From the responses above, it seems to follow that there is no ethical burden/duty to care for the aged, infirm, incapacitated and so on. This strikes directly at an emotional mirroring, since I can imagine myself becoming infirm through a variety of routes.

I agree that it can be emotionally upsetting. I initially rejected this moral system for that exact reason--it really made me feel bad to think that it was morally ok to not take care of people. Ultimately, though, I had to acknowledge that how I feel about things has no bearing on whether or not they're good or bad.

The "out" that some will care for this class, not because they are forced to do it, but because they value human life seems to slide back into a reliance on altruism emerging, not as a demand, but as a matter of course.

I don't think valuing human life has been given as a reason why those people would still be cared for. It certainly would be a reason for many people to help out, but it's not necessary. Like I said, you could support a system that cares for such people as a way of insuring that YOU will be cared for in the case of a severe accident. Your motivations would be entirely self-serving, but the result would still help people who need it. Or, as Dinwar said, you may simply enjoy that kind of work.

It's a bit of a nuance to say that I could voluntarily sign on to a system of insurance or social welfare to mitigate the risk, and then say this is different than the social contract where I've signed on voluntarily to live under the laws of the current system.

It goes beyond being "a bit of nuance". For instance, if you sign up for an insurance and then they change something in the policy in a way you dislike, you can choose to drop that insurance (assuming that your agreement allows you to do so, and assuming the agreement allowed them to make the change--otherwise there would probably be litigation involved). But if the government passes laws you don't agree with you can't simply stop being subject to that government. If you live there you must obey their laws, and if you live elsewhere you must obey that government's laws. There are few, if any, places where you could actually live without being under the rule of a government, and for many people it would be impossible to get to them.

 

[Dinwar]

From the responses above, it seems to follow that there is no ethical burden/duty to care for the aged, infirm, incapacitated and so on.

From the O'ist standpoint this isn't significantly different than the argument "Religion is the source of morality." My response is the same as an atheist's: "You mean you're only doing this out of obligation? What kind of a monster are you?!" (Not that I'm saying YOU are a monster; merely paraphrasing the stock atheist response to the statement, to illustrate a point.) What I mean is, you are essentially saying that you only help the aged, infirm, inicapacitated, etc. because you have an obligation to do so. The implication si that without that obligation, you wouldn't help anyone, ever, and neither would anyone else. However, that's not true, and I've got the scars to prove it. I'm an Objectivist. I feel no sense of obligation to help such people--but I do it anyway. I used to help the old people in the town I grew up in, and considered their stories a fair exchange. I've helped with flood control, fire fighting, and other types of typically altruistic activities because I CHOSE to do so, for my own selfish reasons. I still donate to cancer research and help people around the apartment complex, despite not knowing them. My grandfather had no duty to help victims of fire (not to his mind), yet he spent 55 years volunteering on the local fire department.

If the only reason you're helping others is due to a sense of duty, you really need to re-evaluate what you're doing. Something is screwed up--and for exactly the same reasons it's screwed up to say you only refrain from murder because God said so.

Also, while it's true that Objectivists can choose to not help others, the Objectivist community is remarkably willing to lend a hand. Most of the active ones volunteer their time to causes they consider worthy. They derive some value from the activity. So while you can speak of some hypothetical person who never lifts a finger to help others, assuming that's the majority flies in the face of the actual facts. I'll grant you that O'ists have a different view of what groups are worth helping, but they still do help each other and others.

Do the outcomes of an Objectivist philosophy depend on human beings being virtuous in the sense of caring about others without regard to a plurality?

Well, yeah. The main difference between Objectivism and the standard morality today in this regard is that Objectivism does not require charity, while today it's demanded in the form of taxation. If you didn't want to give to charity, you wouldn't be obliged to do so under Objectivism, where as I cannot opt out of such "charities" as Wellfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (that last is a charity, in the sense that it's designed to help those who don't plan for retirement).

 

[Buckaroo]

Ultimately, though, I had to acknowledge that how I feel about things has no bearing on whether or not they're good or bad.

So, you're abdicating your innate moral sense in order to follow an abstract, specious set of pseudo-philosphical principles with no basis in reality? Lovely.

 

[Mister Agenda]

(Bolding mine)

Now perhaps you can explain how the existence of zoning and building codes are compatible with Rand's conception of the proper role of government.

ETA: Though I'm unlikely to reply, as I'm pretty much just in this thread for the lulz.

No worries, I don't really have a dog in this race, I'm just pedantic.

I would say that you could have zoning laws and building codes justified as needed to protect the rights of property owners, but that would be a very 'soft' form of O'ism indeed. A less soft approach more consistent with the 'mainstream' of O'ism would be contractual property agreements as in neighborhood associations instead of zoning laws. I know some people regard Rand's writings as scriptures, but like all scriptures, followers find them open to some interpretation.

 

[Akri]

So, you're abdicating your innate moral sense in order to follow an abstract, specious set of pseudo-philosphical principles with no basis in reality? Lovely.

I suffer from depression and anxiety issues. My "innate moral sense" (as you have termed my emotions) makes me feel like a completely worthless human being if I forget to do the dishes. So yes, I'm refusing to use that as my moral compass.

 

[AlBell]

...

As someone who has dealt with mental illness/disability, I wouldn't give Objectivism a second's thought if it was unable to address the problem of how to care for such people.

I'll guess some people (maybe you) would open for-profit disabled/elderly care facilities same as now.

 

[Merton]

Irrelevant. The minimum standard in O'ism for morality--not the standard for being "good", merely for not being evil--is not initiating force against others. There are no excuses permitted, and no mitigating factors. If you initiate the use of force, you are wrong. Period. That's why I say that happyness isn't the moral compass for Objectivists, merely a result.

The biggest difference is that Objectivism considers individual rights to be, for lack of a better term, sacred.

It's also not a deontological theory of morality--meaning that there's no duty in Objectivism. This puts it in diametric opposition to Kant's system.

Perhaps you folks can help clear up what appears to be some conflicting accounts. It sounds like you're saying that Objectivism supports inviolable rights related to individual autonomy (very Kantian, by the way), but then you say it's not deontological and doesn't have duties. Wouldn't you say that, under Objectivism, one has a duty not to initiate force against others?

Like marplots, I would like to know how this differs from other philosophies; specifically, how does rational self-interest as a moral basis lead to results distinct from Kantian ethics with its categorical imperative? It would seem to me that there must be a case in which Objectivist philosophy permits a violation of autonomy denied by the CI, but this appears to be at odds with what you have been saying about initiating force.

Another question: how is capitalism derived from rational self-interest? Or is capitalism merely consistent with it? How does an Objectivist define property?