A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[MontagK505]

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

Quoted by tsig:
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.

There's your definition. Explain how someone who follows those principles
only results in:
IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

Objectivism can also mean "I don't like being screwed by others".

 

[Myriad]

Quoted by tsig:
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.

There's your definition. Explain how someone who follows those principles
only results in:
IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

Objectivism can also mean "I don't like being screwed by others".

What does Objectivism say about how to manage commons?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[MontagK505]

What does Objectivism say about how to manage commons?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have no idea, tsig's definition doesn't seem to cover it.

The devils in the details I guess.

BTW An Objectivst could also say: "I've got mine and I promise not to try stop you from getting yours."
And still stay within the Objectivst dogma.

Respectfully,
Montag

 

[Earthborn]

Nothing in Objectivism says "I've got mine.. screw you." as a moral ideal.

No, but it does not consider it immoral to say so either. In Objectivism someone is allowed to care about others, but unlike most other moral philosophies there is no moral obligation to do so. That makes it an ideal moral philosophy for people who want to say "I've got mine... Screw you."

People who feel that they do have a moral obligation to care about others, and who do not want to live purely for themselves, are not going to be attracted to this philosophy. Even if their altruism is allowed by Objectivist principles, they are not going to be happy following a philosophy that allows some to not care about others.

Objectivism isn't the only system that fails this.

Some philosophies fail quicker than others, though. If a philosophy has "central tenets" that are provably untrue (such as "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"), then it fails almost immediately.

If it also assumes very specific answers to difficult philosophical issues ("reality exists independent of consciousness"), bold unprovable assertions ("the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness"), conclusions that simply do not follow ("the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism") and claims that are purely subjective opinion ("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.") then there is not a lot of reason to consider it a useful philosophy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Arguing like that would not be holding to the same rules as any other conversation. This is the Religion forum, sir; the tomatoes you were handed on your way in are not there in case you get hungry. Presenting "it's juvenile" as an acceptable argument is de rigeur around here. That doesn't change just because it's your sacred cow on the chopping block.

I'd argue this ridiculously cultish devotion to Rand is the biggest hurdle Objectivism currently faces. Whatever the merits of the philosophy, the woman chosen to represent it was a nut. A joyless, hypocritical sourpuss with an odd rape fetish, who couldn't pull her head from her ass long enough to have a polite conversation with Jim Freaking Henson. She's not the person you want people thinking of when they hear "Objectivism." You'd be better off disowning her entirely, and presenting a completely new face with the same ideas behind it.

I am reading that link and laughing my ass off. Jesus she is hilarious!

Great Moments in Debate History, Part MCCCXXVII...

AYN RAND
I am not isolated. I have no contempt for others. Millions of people read my books and find my thoughts inspirational. I hardly spend my time on the sidelines in a trash can grumping.

JIM HENSON
Not yet anyway.

 

[Buckaroo]

Quoted by tsig:
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.

The biggest problem I have with Objectivism is not so much that Rand was a bit of a ****, it's that she clearly pulled the bolded part straight out of her own ass.

 

[Pixel42]

Quoted by tsig:
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.

There's your definition. Explain how someone who follows those principles
only results in:
IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

Objectivism can also mean "I don't like being screwed by others".

Say companies A and B make the same product. Company A disposes of their toxic waste products responsibly, Company B dumps them in the nearest stream. Laissez-faire capitalism will favour Company B, as they will almost certainly be able to charge less than Company A and still make a profit. Are not those who buy the cheaper product saying "I got mine, screw you" to those who live by the stream?

This is the problem with any system which relies solely on individual self interest. The common good will always suffer, because short term individual benefits will always take precedence over long term collective harm.

 

[Pvt. Stash]

Oh so its like That...

We don't like Objectivism... it doesnt feel warm OR fuzzy... people who believe in being responsible for themselves and carrying their own freight are saying " I got mine, screw you " (apparently).

But those on the recieving end of the benefits of my labor ARENT saying that exact same thing ? no? you sure ?

How can you assert so matter of factly that Objectivists believe/say that ("I got mine, screw you"), while those that get the collectivist benefits cant be saying the same thing ?

yeah its BS... you can equally attribute the saying to Both sets of people and would be just as hard pressed to support EITHER of them with any actual , you know, evidence....

But no, we feel so much better about ourselves when we slam those we see as less humanitarian/altruistic/charitable than us... regardless of what the actual situation is...

 

[Akri]

Say companies A and B make the same product. Company A disposes of their toxic waste products responsibly, Company B dumps them in the nearest stream. Laissez-faire capitalism will favour Company B, as they will almost certainly be able to charge less than Company A and still make a profit. Are not those who buy the cheaper product saying "I got mine, screw you" to those who live by the stream?

They would be. However an Objectivist isn't necessarily going to buy the cheaper product if he understands why it's cheaper. Even if he has no ties to the people who live by that stream, if companies are rewarded for dumping waste into streams then eventually a company may dump waste into a stream near his house, or his parents'. So there's a good reason for an Objectivist to buy the more expensive product (or, if they work in the right industry, to find a way to make that toxic waste useful).

Of course, the other issue is that it may not be legal for the company to dump into the stream. The people who live by it--not wanting companies to dump toxic waste into their stream--may have taken legal ownership of it, which means they could impose rules about what could be dumped into the water. If Company B was violating those rules, the people who owned the stream would be able to take them to court.

This is the problem with any system which relies solely on individual self interest. The common good will always suffer, because short term individual benefits will always take precedence over long term collective harm.

Objectivism isn't supposed to be about short-term individual benefits, though. It's about rational self-interest, which includes looking at long term consequences.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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).

Sez you. They'd argue they're acting in their own self-interest, in the very spirit of Objectivism. That's why it's a true No True Scotsman.

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

All philosophies don't insist that their assertions are self-contained. It's perfectly possible to add a cup of zen to a pound of Hume, mix well, sprinkle some Marx on top and bake in two years of college tuition until golden brown. It's probably because Objectivism is still a little wet behind the ears that it thinks the whole world would work better if only everyone were an Objectivist... somehow.

They would be. However an Objectivist isn't necessarily going to buy the cheaper product if he understands why it's cheaper.

That's a big if, considering the company has a rational self-interest in keeping that knowledge close to the vest. It's happened plenty of times in the past where a company pulls these stunts for decades, yet knowledge of it does not spread far enough to impact the benefit of cutting corners, even if your True Objectivists elect to boycott.

Tell me, though... these legal ramifications you mention. Who pays the Judge's salary?

 

[Akri]

Sez you. They'd argue they're acting in their own self-interest, in the very spirit of Objectivism. That's why it's a true No True Scotsman.

We're talking about the idea of people creating monopolies by preventing others from competing, and of using money to buy legislation, yes?

In both cases you're talking about using force against a person who is innocent according to Objectivist morality, which would be a violation of Objectivist ethics. There are some exceptions to this in the first case (say, if "preventing competition" simply occurs by striking voluntary deals with the competitors--which is why I had initially tried to get you to actually explain what scenario you were envisioning).

There's more to Objectivist morality than just self-interest.

It's probably because Objectivism is still a little wet behind the ears that it thinks the whole world would work better if only everyone were an Objectivist... somehow.

Considering that your objections to Objectivism have thus far been focused on actions that are condemned by Objectivism it seems that you also think the world would work better if everyone actually was an Objectivist.

Tell me, though... these legal ramifications you mention. Who pays the Judge's salary?

Taxes, I imagine.

 

[Dinwar]

Sez you. They'd argue they're acting in their own self-interest, in the very spirit of Objectivism. That's why it's a true No True Scotsman.

Why didn't John Galt take Wesley Mouche's job?

 

[Akri]

That's a big if, considering the company has a rational self-interest in keeping that knowledge close to the vest. It's happened plenty of times in the past where a company pulls these stunts for decades, yet knowledge of it does not spread far enough to impact the benefit of cutting corners, even if your True Objectivists elect to boycott.

It occurs to me that you're changing the rules of the game a bit, here. Your initial question was about the customers of the two companies, and carried with it the implicit assumption that those customers knew what was going on (otherwise you can't really accuse them of saying "screw you" to the people living by the stream, since they would have no knowledge that the people by the stream were being impacted in any way). Now that I've given an answer that at least partially resolves your proposed dilemma, you've changed the scenario so that my solution no longer fits.

That being said, I'm not sure that it is in the company's rational self-interest to dump waste into the stream. It might work well for the short-term, but what happens when the information does leak out? Will the company be able to survive the PR hit? If they get taken to court, how much will they end up paying out in damages, and in costs to clean up the mess they've made? Even if the amount saved over the years of dumping waste outweighs the cost of that cleanup, the fact that the cleanup doesn't get to be spread out over as many years/decades means it could be more of a financial burden than the company would be able to bear.

 

[Dinwar]

That being said, I'm not sure that it is in the company's rational self-interest to dump waste into the stream.

It's a common article of faith in Environmentalism that companies will always do what's most harmful to the environment. This ignores two key factors:

1) Private property. Companies do not own the stream, nor do they own the property downstream. When real, demonstrable, objective harm occurs due to someone's neglagence or mallicious actions, that is a crime. At the very least, under an O'ist government the victims would be entitled to restitution and the purpetrators would be obliged to stop and to clean up their mess. If it all remains on their property, there is nothing anyone can (in justice) do, but if anything from their property enters your property without your permission it is a rights violation and can be prosecuted as such under the principles of Objectivism.

2) Self-interest. Waste is an economic term, not a scientific one. I know of a PVC plant in Mississippi that used to have "accidental" waste releases on a regular basis. Then, the president of the company met the president of another company who complained about the cost of that material. The PVC president said, in essence, "What, you BUY that stuff? Let me buy you a drink--you and I can make a deal here!" Suddenly the waste dumping stopped. It didn't trickle to a close, it didn't gradually decline, it ENDED. Completely. Dumping the "waste" was now taking money out of the shareholders' pockets. This is one example, but it's sufficient to illustrate the point that legislation is not the only way to prevent release of hazardous wastes, nor is it even the best way in at least some (I would argue most) cases.

Want another? Okay. During construction projects most companies I've worked with will factor the price of violating environmental laws into the cost of building the project. They then ignore the laws to the maximum extent they can get away with, until their bribes--I'm sorry, the money earmarked for the fees runs out. There's also "Shoot, shovel, and shut up", though that's more what private citizens do (not exclusively; I've seen some big corporations try to get away with it). The legislation, in terms of actually stopping people from damaging the environment, simply isn't effective in the real world as it is now. So the notion that environmental laws are necessary to protect the environment can only be held by evading the fact that they don't work.

 

[Akri]

2) Self-interest. Waste is an economic term, not a scientific one. I know of a PVC plant in Mississippi that used to have "accidental" waste releases on a regular basis. Then, the president of the company met the president of another company who complained about the cost of that material. The PVC president said, in essence, "What, you BUY that stuff? Let me buy you a drink--you and I can make a deal here!" Suddenly the waste dumping stopped. It didn't trickle to a close, it didn't gradually decline, it ENDED. Completely. Dumping the "waste" was now taking money out of the shareholders' pockets. This is one example, but it's sufficient to illustrate the point that legislation is not the only way to prevent release of hazardous wastes, nor is it even the best way in at least some (I would argue most) cases.

Yeah, I remember you telling me that story before. Which is why in a previous post I brought up the possibility of someone finding ways to make the waste product not be waste anymore. Which would ultimately be the best solution for everyone involved.

 

[Dinwar]

It's also a way for an environmentalist to function perfectly well in an O'ist society. Rand said "If you wish to help them, we will not interfere." In the same way, if someone is HONESTLY worried about the impacts of waste chemicals, they would be able to come up with ways to use them. I can easily see a consulting firm focused on exactly that being a money-maker; after all, they'd get paid for the consultation, and if they succeeded they could negotiate for a percentage of the profits. As it stands now, Environmentalism is simply lazy and cowardly--the Environmentalists don't want to be bothered to actually DO anything, or to put any of their own comfort on the line, they merely wish to force others to comply with their demands.

 

[Astrodude]

The older I get, the sillier certain views of Ayn Rand become.

 

[Merton]

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.

Umm... I'm not sure what definitions you are using here, but collectivism is usually diametrically opposed to capitalism: the collective ownership of the means of production cannot exist at the same time as private ownership of the same.

As to the OP, I know some philosophy professors have taught her epistemology, but I don't think I've heard her ethics covered. When it comes to Ethics, I think there are much better philosophers out there (granted, I'm more of a Kantian) and this might explain why her beliefs don't receive much attention outside of her fiction novels. Also, as was mentioned before, the fact that her philosophy is expounded in fiction novels is extremely off-putting to academics.

 

[Akri]

Umm... I'm not sure what definitions you are using here, but collectivism is usually diametrically opposed to capitalism: the collective ownership of the means of production cannot exist at the same time as private ownership of the same.

If three people all co-own a private business, then that could be considered a form of collectivism within a capitalist system.

Also, as was mentioned before, the fact that her philosophy is expounded in fiction novels is extremely off-putting to academics.

I've argued elsewhere that Objectivists really ought to stick to discussing the nonfiction literature when arguing about the philosophy for this reason (and also because it just seems simpler to do things that way).

 

[Aepervius]

Quoted by tsig:
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.

There's your definition. Explain how someone who follows those principles
only results in:
IOW Objectivism means "I got mine, screw you".

Objectivism can also mean "I don't like being screwed by others".

Because such a state very quickly lead to tragedy of commons, and to monopolies. Both happens quickly in a laissez faire capitalist society. And whereas if you are the sole guy profiting from it you can be happy, we long recognized that as a society that monopolies and tragedy of common lead to a worst society as a whole for each individual members.

This is one of the many point where objectivism utterly fail.