A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[AlBell]

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.

It would seem to me that this begins at HOA level but will (should) expand to groups of HOAs (1 representative for from each for example) and added groups considering larger issues (electric, water/sewer, roads, schools, etc) as needed.

 

[Myriad]

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.

Exactly the point I was making, a few pages back, which was conveniently forgotten about.

Furthermore, anyone can make the free choice to participate voluntarily, and thence be living completely by Objectivist principles. Of course, if they choose otherwise, they'll still be forced to live by the same rules anyhow and have their rights violated (or live outside of the system, as you suggest; maybe a survivalist compound or something). But that's the choice they made. As they've said in response to others' arguments that their system would lead to a crapsack world with crap choices, that's how the world is, suck it up.

----------

On the topic of how worthwhile it is to discuss Objectivist philosophy, does anyone actually get involved in Objectivism because of the philosophy? Is the philosophy the starting point for anyone, including Rand? The problem seems to me that most people interested in Objectivism developed their interest as a result of being pissed off at having to pay for a wheelchair ramp for their business, or not being allowed by the zoning board to build a three-story treehouse in their yard, or something comparable.

No one opposes national health care on the basis of it violating the principles laid out in Plato's Republic or Nietche's Man and Superman. Is there any doubt or dispute that the philosophy of Objectivism is being invoked to justify the laissez-faire political stance, rather than the other way around?

Or was I not supposed to mention the large gray quadruped with the prehensile proboscis, presently sharing quarters with us?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dinwar]

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.

The concept of an innate moral sense is a myth, far as I'm concerned. So yeah, I freely abdicate it--just as I abdicate belief in Santa Clause and the Toothfairy.

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?

You can if you want, but the terminology doesn't alter the concept in any way. You are not obligated to help others; the only requirement in O'ism is to not violate their rights.

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?

I'd have to look into Kant more to answer that in detale. I will say that calling things like "Don't murder other people" and "Don't touch their stuff without permission" duties seems to stretch the term to the point where it's useless. You may as well call "Don't float upward" a duty--at the point where you're calling respecting the rights of others a duty, the term ceases to be useful.

Another question: how is capitalism derived from rational self-interest?

Capitalism is the practical application of the principle of rational self-interest. In capitalism the individual makes choices about what is in their best interest and utilizes their purchasing power accordingly. Capitalism is the only economic system I'm aware of that is consistent with rational self-interest; socialism of any flavor substitutes the will of the "people" (in practical terms, those with power) for one's rational judgement.

How does an Objectivist define property?

That which one owns. I'm not sure what the issue is--perhaps if you point to what you think the problems are, I coulud better understand your question.

I know some people regard Rand's writings as scriptures,

Oddly enough, in all of my dealings with Objectivists it's only those opposed to the philosophy that view Rand's writings as scriptures. Objectivists agree with them, but there's a gulf of difference between "I agree with this statement" and "This statement is holy and cannot be questioned".

To put it another way: Objectivists regard Rand's writings in precisely the same way brights and skeptics regard Dawkins' and Sagan's writings. I'm even worse--when I read Rand's works I didn't say "Wow! That's brilliiant!" I said "Finally, someone gets it!" I was an Objectivist long before I knew the term existed.

 

[Dinwar]

Exactly the point I was making, a few pages back, which was conveniently forgotten about.

No, it was addressed. You may disagree with how it was addressed, but it is simply false that it was forgotten about. I raised a number of issues I haven't seen addressed.

On the topic of how worthwhile it is to discuss Objectivist philosophy, does anyone actually get involved in Objectivism because of the philosophy?

See my above statement. But this is really irrelevant. The critical issue is whether O'ism is true.

Is there any doubt or dispute that the philosophy of Objectivism is being invoked to justify the laissez-faire political stance, rather than the other way around?

Yes. Those of us familiar with Objectivism know this to be false. You can believe what you want, of course, but you have to ignore the facts to do so.

ETA: I'd also like to point out that you are apparently assuming we're all liars. If you have evidence, please present it. Otherwise, please stop with the ad homs. The reasoning is the issue here. If you have any evidence to suggest we're not being honest about our reasoning that's relevant, but baseless speculation isn't.

 

[Myriad]

No, it was addressed. You may disagree with how it was addressed, but it is simply false that it was forgotten about. I raised a number of issues I haven't seen addressed.

I responded to the issues you raised here.

Perhaps you merely overlooked it, instead of forgetting about it.

Yes. Those of us familiar with Objectivism know this to be false. You can believe what you want, of course, but you have to ignore the facts to do so.

I am aware of claims to the contrary. Where are those facts available, and how were they ascertained?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dinwar]

I am aware of claims to the contrary.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Again, please follow the basic principles of rational discourse, or we're done here. These include concepts such as Burden of Proof. If you're going to assume that accusation proves guilt, there's no reason for me to continue talking to you about this topic.

 

[Akri]

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?

I tend to think of a "duty" as being something you must do, not something you must avoid; however if you want to use it to include something that must not be done then it applies.

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?

On difference is that in Objectivism you don't have to be acting out of a sense of duty in order to be a good person. If you avoid acting immorally for purely because you don't want to go to jail then Objectivism considers you moral, while Kantian ethics do not. Objectivism also does not believe "common dignity and respect" to be a right (quote taken from Wikipedia, under 'Medical Ethics"). An Objectivist can be a complete and utter tool to people and still be considered moral. Objectivism also does not view sex as a degrading act, and has no moral issue with sex, masturbation, prostitution, or pornography.

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.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, probably because I'm not well-versed in Kantian ethics. But Objectivism never considers it ok to force someone to do something (violate their autonomy) without their consent unless the person has acted immorally.

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

That's three questions.

I don't think it's specifically derived from rational self-interest (though it is consistent with it) but from the moral principles of Objectivism. If people are individuals with rights, and those rights include the right to decide where to work, what agreements to enter into, and the ability to own/rent/sell property, then the economic system that's going to result is capitalism.

I'm not sure if Objectivism has it's own definition of "property", I think it's simply used to mean "a thing someone owns" like in normal speech.

 

[Mister Agenda]

----------

On the topic of how worthwhile it is to discuss Objectivist philosophy, does anyone actually get involved in Objectivism because of the philosophy? Is the philosophy the starting point for anyone, including Rand? The problem seems to me that most people interested in Objectivism developed their interest as a result of being pissed off at having to pay for a wheelchair ramp for their business, or not being allowed by the zoning board to build a three-story treehouse in their yard, or something comparable.
Myriad

Although it is impossible to answer, except anecdotally (no way to tell if your impression of why most people who are interested in Objectivism developed it is accurate), that is an interesting question.

I shoplifted my first Ayn Rand book when I was a teenager. I think it was 'Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal', but it might have been 'The New Left'. That was a very long time ago.

A lot of it made sense. Among other things, it presented me with the first analysis of why shoplifting was wrong that went beyond 'God doesn't like it' that I'd heard, which prompted me to return the book to the store and nip my shoplifting habit in the bud.

Not initiating force or fraud made sense to me. Accepting the reality of reality as an axiom made sense to me. Allowing people to do what they want as long as they weren't hurting anyone made sense to me. So I read a lot more Rand. Ironically, in the long run, some of the things I didn't agree with her on at the time, I agree with her on now: that it's reasonable to dismiss the notions that God and paranormal phenomomena are real, given the inadequacy of the reasons for believing in them. I would learn skepticism elsewhere.

The philosophy left an impression on me, but one of the things it has a hard time dealing with is natural differences in personality being legitimate, another is confusing terminology (like selfishness being enlightened self interest instead of a willingness to take at the expense of others), and another is lack of recognition of the important role empathy plays in our lives. It has some good, though not necessarily original ideas, but it's incomplete. It would be interesting to see a 'fixed' version of O'ism, but in the final analysis, there are circumstances where I think collective needs trump some individual rights, because there's suffering that I'm not willing to sanction in the name of individuality.

 

[Akri]

I shoplifted my first Ayn Rand book when I was a teenager.

Proof that the universe has a sense of humor

 

[Dinwar]

Although it is impossible to answer, except anecdotally (no way to tell if your impression of why most people who are interested in Objectivism developed it), that is an interesting question.

Not really. Rand was around long before Obamacare. Diana Hsieh was blogging 11 years ago. Leonard Peikoff has been around longer. Alex Epstien hasn't addressed Obamacare at all, far as I know. Ari Armstrong focuses on political activism and the like. Nethanial Brandon focused on psychology. To say that Objectivists are merley complaining about Obamacare is to flagrantly and malliciously mischaracterize the philosophy and its advocates.

The "question" is nothing but mudslinging, and is an example of the type of thing that's only tollerated when discussing Objectivism. Anywhere else the slinger would be called out on it. Here, however, we're expected to meekly accept that we're guilty until we demonstrate otherwise. Sorry, but I refuse to do that. YOU make an accusation, YOU support it.

another is confusing terminology (like selfishness being enlightened self interest instead of a willingness to take at the expense of others),

It's philosophy. It has jargon. And honestly, Rand was pretty good about defining her terms and sticking to them.

and another is lack of recognition of the important role empathy plays in our lives.

Emotions aren't tools of cognition. Empathy is a type of emotional response. It's not that O'ism rejects the concept of empathy, it's just that it's nto viewed as a way to learn anything about external reality. At best, it's a way to learn about our values. O'ism is not a Stoic philosohpy (which was the hardest thing for ME to wrap my head around).

but in the final analysis, there are circumstances where I think collective needs trump some individual rights, because there's suffering that I'm not willing to sanction in the name of individuality.

That's not the issue. If you want to help people, nothing in O'ism prevents you. What you're NOT allowed to do is force me to help them.

 

[Buckaroo]

The concept of an innate moral sense is a myth, far as I'm concerned.

Rubbish. A innate moral sense is what it means to be a social animal, and to some degree or other exists across all social species as a product of evolution. Though I admit it is possible that you don't personally perceive it (i.e lack a sense of conscience), that would make you a sociopath, and thus an outlier.

 

[Akri]

Rubbish. A innate moral sense is what it means to be a social animal, and to some degree or other exists across all social species as a product of evolution. Though I admit it is possible that you don't personally perceive it (i.e lack a sense of conscience), that would make you a sociopath, and thus an outlier.

Since you seem to be of the opinion that emotions can be used to determine ethics, would you care to provide some evidence to that effect? Does the fact that people's emotions tend to be influenced by the culture they live in cause any problems for this idea of an innate moral sense?

 

[Dinwar]

A innate moral sense is what it means to be a social animal

Got any proof of that, or am I supposed to simply accept your word? How do you address the fact that various cultures find various things moral/immoral, often with enormous disagreements? Take, for example, the Zulu and the British: to the British desecration of the dead was hidiously immoral, while to the Zulu slicing open their bellies was a sign of respect (they thought it released the souls). How do you address the fact that people within our own culture don't seem to accept the same morality?

Though I admit it is possible that you don't personally perceive it (i.e lack a sense of conscience), that would make you a sociopath, and thus an outlier.

Ah, yes, I see. If I disagree with you, I must be damaged. It can't POSSIBLY be that this issue is open to discussion--anyone who disagrees must be mentally handicapped and therefore wrong by definition. The entire field of ethics is reduced to a binary choice: either agree with you, or be dismissed as insane.

 

[Merton]

I'd have to look into Kant more to answer that in detale. I will say that calling things like "Don't murder other people" and "Don't touch their stuff without permission" duties seems to stretch the term to the point where it's useless. You may as well call "Don't float upward" a duty--at the point where you're calling respecting the rights of others a duty, the term ceases to be useful.

My point here is that rights are inherently dutiful, but vary depending upon the basis. I'm trying to figure out what rights an Objectivist would have that aren't present to Kantians, and vice versa.

Capitalism is the practical application of the principle of rational self-interest. In capitalism the individual makes choices about what is in their best interest and utilizes their purchasing power accordingly. Capitalism is the only economic system I'm aware of that is consistent with rational self-interest; socialism of any flavor substitutes the will of the "people" (in practical terms, those with power) for one's rational judgement.

[...]

That which one owns. I'm not sure what the issue is--perhaps if you point to what you think the problems are, I coulud better understand your question.

That's three questions.

I don't think it's specifically derived from rational self-interest (though it is consistent with it) but from the moral principles of Objectivism. If people are individuals with rights, and those rights include the right to decide where to work, what agreements to enter into, and the ability to own/rent/sell property, then the economic system that's going to result is capitalism.

I'm not sure if Objectivism has it's own definition of "property", I think it's simply used to mean "a thing someone owns" like in normal speech.

lol. Yes, three questions, but all relating to the same concept. What I'm getting at here is that, for example, Liberalism is often associated with the labor theory of property, which states that property is created when one mixes his or her labor with natural resources. Liberals also believe that it is okay to appropriate land (i.e. private property/real property) as long as there is "as much and as good" for everyone else. How is property created according to an Objectivist? Defining property as "that which one owns" doesn't really tell me what can and cannot be adopted as property. Is anything other than another human being eligible for ownership?

One of my biggest peeves is the conflation of free markets with capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (MoP), in contrast with the collective ownership thereof (i.e. socialism). Under socialism, it is possible to have "the right to decide where to work, what agreements to enter into, and the ability to own/rent/sell property," so I don't quite understand how socialism isn't also consistent with Objectivist ethics (unless you are presupposing that land is property). In other words, what about Objectivism demands the private ownership of the MoP? Some would say capitalism causes those without access to the MoP to be dependent upon the owners' wills, therefore constituting an infringement upon their autonomy (i.e. one is not permitted to labor as he or she pleases, but instead must sell this labor at a massive discount just to survive). Why isn't this considered immoral under Objectivist ethics?

Objectivism also does not believe "common dignity and respect" to be a right (quote taken from Wikipedia, under 'Medical Ethics"). An Objectivist can be a complete and utter tool to people and still be considered moral. Objectivism also does not view sex as a degrading act, and has no moral issue with sex, masturbation, prostitution, or pornography.

I'm not following that second sentence... could you please elaborate? As for the sexual aspects, I think Kant went a little too far, but that is a difference worth mentioning. Thanks for the information!

 

[Akri]

Is anything other than another human being eligible for ownership?

I believe that's the case, but I also admit to not being entirely certain here.

One of my biggest peeves is the conflation of free markets with capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (MoP), in contrast with the collective ownership thereof (i.e. socialism). Under socialism, it is possible to have "the right to decide where to work, what agreements to enter into, and the ability to own/rent/sell property," so I don't quite understand how socialism isn't also consistent with Objectivist ethics (unless you are presupposing that land is property).

Yes, land is considered property. So are the building where work is done, the raw materials used, any machines/tools, and the companies themselves. (Note: I'm snipping the rest of this section because I think it should be covered by my answer here, but if not let me know)

I'm not following that second sentence... could you please elaborate?

Sure. Kant said that you need to be respectful toward people. However according to Objectivist morals you can shout obscenities at someone and refuse to do business with them for bigoted reasons, and still be acting completely morally. You'd be a jerk, but not immoral.

Thanks for the information!

You're welcome

 

[Zelenius]

No one opposes national health care on the basis of it violating the principles laid out in Plato's Republic or Nietche's Man and Superman. Is there any doubt or dispute that the philosophy of Objectivism is being invoked to justify the laissez-faire political stance, rather than the other way around?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I apologize if someone else has already corrected this and I somehow missed it. Actually it was Shaw who wrote "Man and Superman", not Nietzsche. Nietzsche did, however, coin the term "Ubermensch" which is sometimes loosely translated into English as "superman", so this may be why you got confused.

Since we are on the subject of Nietzsche, one of the things that turned me off to Objectivism was that I had read nearly all of Nietzsche's books before I read anything by Ayn Rand. It seemed to be that Objectivism was very watered-down Nietzsche, though Rand for a long time refused to acknowledge Nietzsche as an important influence(I believe she eventually did later in life). It seemed important to Rand that her followers consider her philosophy to be largely original, except for the frequently acknowledged Aristotle influence.

This lack of originality is not sufficient grounds to dismiss Objectivism, but it does help to understand where this philosophy came from. That said, there is no such thing as a type of philosophy that is totally original.

Although I am not an Objectivist, since I disagree with some of its founding principles, I find that criticisms of it are often based on silly, cartoonish misunderstandings of what Objectivism is actually about. The idea that Objectivism is some kind of Utopian ideal tops the list of these misunderstandings. On the other hand, some(not all or most) Objectivists I've met over the years have a cult-like reverence for Rand, to the point that they would dig through her books to find answers to some pressing social or political issues they were concerned about.

 

[Buckaroo]

Since you seem to be of the opinion that emotions can be used to determine ethics, would you care to provide some evidence to that effect?

I'm not talking about ethics, I'm talking about morality. They are very different things. Nor am I saying that emotions determine either of them.

Got any proof of that, or am I supposed to simply accept your word?

Dude, seriously? Page after page of "No time for evidence, Rand addressed this, go read a book" and you can still ask me this question with a straight face? In any case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

How do you address the fact that various cultures find various things moral/immoral, often with enormous disagreements? Take, for example, the Zulu and the British: to the British desecration of the dead was hidiously immoral, while to the Zulu slicing open their bellies was a sign of respect (they thought it released the souls). How do you address the fact that people within our own culture don't seem to accept the same morality?

You're simply confusing the culturally-determined expression of morality with the moral sense itself. It's analogous to language: a Chomskyan universal grammar lies hard-wired in the brain at the base of every human language, despite superficial differences in expression. In the case of differences in cultural mores, they all spring from the same root, but branch differently.

Ah, yes, I see. If I disagree with you, I must be damaged. It can't POSSIBLY be that this issue is open to discussion--anyone who disagrees must be mentally handicapped and therefore wrong by definition. The entire field of ethics is reduced to a binary choice: either agree with you, or be dismissed as insane.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

[Zelenius]

You're simply confusing the culturally-determined expression of morality with the moral sense itself. It's analogous to language: a Chomskyan universal grammar lies hard-wired in the brain at the base of every human language, despite superficial differences in expression. In the case of differences in cultural mores, they all spring from the same root, but branch differently.

I must say that is an excellent analogy for understanding the evolution of our innate moral sense. I'm so glad I thought of it.

 

[Akri]

I'm not talking about ethics, I'm talking about morality. They are very different things. Nor am I saying that emotions determine either of them.

When I said that I was not using emotions to determine whether a moral system is right or wrong you said that I was abdicating my innate moral sense. So either you're saying that emotions determine morals, or you were committing the equivocation fallacy.

 

[Buckaroo]

I must say that is an excellent analogy for understanding the evolution of our innate moral sense. I'm so glad I thought of it.

Did you? Sorry 'bout that! I've skimmed most of this thread, and must've missed it.