Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect that you refuse to get the point because you really really want to argue the merits of socialism vs free market.

Tough. I wont.

Now what?

No, you just have no idea what a free market must entail. What is being advocated is anarchy not a free market. That is when you get the removal of all responcibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, I get the gist of your question. First I am going to answer your question, then I am going to support it, and ref a short section of Rand's writings. I hope this method is not boring or trivializing the subject, because you have asked a very good question.

Is it moral or immoral to extort a large sum from an accident victim, and refuse to help unless he pays up? (qualification: Personal morality issue. It should be clear to all that Rand would have opposed law, social forcings, on the issue).

Immoral. Grossly, obscenely immoral.


That is stated irrespective of the following -

My duty as a capitalist and competitor ambulance driver is to drive him out of business, lest he sully the reputation of those in our trade and thus impinge on my prosperity in the trade.

The problem here is that taking advantage of others because of changes in supply and demand is fundamental to capitalism. So it is moral in general to soak someone for as much as possible because of changes in supply and demand, so when do emergencies that can cause sifts in supply and demand make something immoral?

If you are arguing that the marketplace is fundamentally moral, then taking advantage of events that cause a reduction in supply is in general moral, so if you argue that, at what point does it become immoral to use an unpredicted event for personal profit?

 

[mhaze]

The problem here is that taking advantage of others because of changes in supply and demand is fundamental to capitalism. So it is moral in general to soak someone for as much as possible because of changes in supply and demand, so when do emergencies that can cause sifts in supply and demand make something immoral?

If you are arguing that the marketplace is fundamentally moral, then taking advantage of events that cause a reduction in supply is in general moral, so if you argue that, at what point does it become immoral to use an unpredicted event for personal profit?

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you now asking a general question about her attitude toward capitalism? That appears to be the case, but I want to be sure I have it exactly right.

In the alternate, you might be still on the prior case discussed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you now asking a general question about her attitude toward capitalism? That appears to be the case, but I want to be sure I have it exactly right.

In the alternate, you might be still on the prior case discussed.

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

As she does not believe in any gray area there must be some specific point on this spectrum where it turns from moral to immoral. I would like to have an idea where that is.

 

[mhaze]

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

As she does not believe in any gray area there must be some specific point on this spectrum where it turns from moral to immoral. I would like to have an idea where that is.

You are saying that reselling a property at a large profit is problematic?
What difference is it if the profit is 2% or 200%? Note that in an economic system, profit is not a static thing but moves and creates goods or services. That is why one factory worker in a town is said to support four or five people in that town - at the supermarket, the ice house, etc.

Again, there may be a confusion between the economic system and private morality. Rand did in fact laugh at assertions of immoral profits, because the use of such a concept would typically illustrate some ignorance of the function of capital (Wealth of Nations is really the basic reference for this).

If you just crack open Wealth of Nations, read the first few pages, then do the same for Das Kapital, what is your impression?

 

[EGarrett]

Misunderstanding, indeed. I thought I made it crystal clear Rand did not favor lying or stealing. The argument is that this belief is inconsistent with authentic ethical egoism. Please do try to read a little deeper, if you can.

This thread is not about authentic ethical egoism...it's about Ayn Rand. If you want people to understand your point, make it concisely. You did not do that.

 

[RandFan]

No offense, but if you want to know why you end up in so many flamewars, this is a textbook example. If you want the person to answer only that question...just say "Try it this way" then give ONLY that question. No need for all the condescension and attitude. Really, it adds nothing and drags my thread into the gutter.

No offense taken. I'm not sure what you are complaining about. The guy is purposely being obtuse. Perhaps you should talk to him.

 

[Cain]

This thread is not about authentic ethical egoism...it's about Ayn Rand. If you want people to understand your point, make it concisely. You did not do that.

Threads naturally branch out, especially around the sixth page (recent posts deal with international comparisons of health care systems and the "cult of moral greyness"). My goodness, whatever does ethical egoism have to do with Ayn Rand? Maybe instead we ought to steer discussion back on to strictly biographical subject matter, and I'll get the ball rolling? So, what do you think was her favorite number? Don't ask me why, but I think it was six.

 

[robinson]

It was 7.

 

[rockoon]

No, you just have no idea what a free market must entail. What is being advocated is anarchy not a free market. That is when you get the removal of all responcibility.

A free market would not have mandated liability. Liability would be a commodity which is negotiated and traded like any other.

The fact that it is mandated means the economics of it is mandated. The participants have no choice, thus there is no free market.

I am still not going to argue the merits of it. The American medical system is a heavily regulated industry and as such isn't even remotely a free market system. Period.

 

[robinson]

The American medical system is a heavily regulated industry and as such isn't even remotely a free market system. Period.

True.

 

[mhaze]

So, what do you think was her favorite number?

One.

 

[Steven Howard]

9. The Cult of Moral Grayness
by Ayn Rand

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bank*ruptcy of today’s culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: “There are no blacks and whites, there are only grays.”

(And so forth.)

This shows both why Rand's novels are so long and why so few grown-ups take her seriously. Four hundred and twenty-four words to say what? Nothing. She sets up a straw man and then doesn't even knock it down.

 

[mhaze]

(And so forth.)

This shows both why Rand's novels are so long and why so few grown-ups take her seriously. Four hundred and twenty-four words to say what? Nothing. She sets up a straw man and then doesn't even knock it down.

Paraphrasing Rand in today's lingo, admittedly much more concise -

"Everybody's a winner."

Right?

 

[robinson]

I watched all the clips on YT. Fascinating. I discussed her with an old timer who was alive when she was big. There was a lot of controversy over her books, and that cool movie with Gary Cooper. I love that speech from the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

 

[EGarrett]

Threads naturally branch out, especially around the sixth page (recent posts deal with international comparisons of health care systems and the "cult of moral greyness").

The Cult of Moral Grayness...by Ayn Rand.

My goodness, whatever does ethical egoism have to do with Ayn Rand?

By your own admission, nothing.

Maybe instead we ought to steer discussion back on to strictly biographical subject matter, and I'll get the ball rolling? So, what do you think was her favorite number? Don't ask me why, but I think it was six.

You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

 

[mhaze]

You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

These things being online - Youtube, etc., has implications we can probably not comprehend.

In late 1999 I ordered VHS tapes of some of Rand's interviews, including Wallace. Those were very rare.

What a difference in the dialog of ideas today.

 

[Cain]

The Cult of Moral Grayness...by Ayn Rand.

By your own admission, nothing.

This is incredible. You do realize Ayn Rand espoused ethical egoism? Are you aware that it cuts to the heart of her ethics? Do you not see how it's even more relevant than an excerpt from an article lambasting the culture?

You know very well that there are a lot of things to bring up about Ayn Rand, Mike Wallace, and the interview. Don't pout.

Pssssht. Oh, and I don't think Rand would choose seven. That number is simply too conventional. I still think six is more plausible.

 

[mhaze]

I'll throw a question out.

Rand sailed to fame half in the Hollywood world, based on her philosophy of capitalism. Then she branched into (short story version) art, music, and romance with her concepts.

Did she get it right, half way get it right, or completely mess it up with these extensions? This is a fairly broad question. There is no short excerpt to support or refute the question. I guess...

 

[Mycroft]

It is not about capitalism in general, but about when taking advantage of a situation becomes immoral.

It is presumably not immoral to sell something after a reduction in the supply or an increase in the demand for that has changed so that you make a large profit. But at some point it would have to become immoral as there is a continuous spectrum from basic say reselling a property at a large profit if the need for such property increases, to threatening to withhold treatment to gain a financial advantage.

It seems to me that what you're describing as "taking advantage" is nothing more than selling a commodity to the person/people who are able/willing to pay the most for it.

If we assume that the supply of this commodity is limited, wouldn't any other practice in effect be showing favoritism towards someone with the least resources? How would that be any more or less moral?

Let's say, for example, that I have acquired something very rare: a rock from Mars. Assume for the sake of argument that it's provenance is impeccable, and that I acquired it for very little.

My neighbor thinks it's really neat, he offers me $1000 for it, which is all the money he has.

A local businessman wants it for his collection and offers me a million dollars for it.

Bill Gates wants it and offers me a billion dollars for it.

At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?