Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[ImaginalDisc]

That's true, ImaginalDisc (that one can make the argument, at least), but it isn't really the topic of this thread.

Heck, I'm in favor of both a national defense and a tax on pollution (a tax, not the arbitrary kinds of regulation we have today. Taxes provide all sorts of incentives that quotas can't). Pollution is clearly an example where there's an absence of a market, since there's a negative externality that can't be internalized. The reason it can't be internalized is that there are ridiculous transaction costs involved- that is, it's realistically impossible to enforce property rights over people's air (though if someone came up with a system, I'd be interested).

Ayn Rand even notes that national defense is one of the very few "proper roles of government." I'm not sure how she feels about environmental restrictions, but either way it's not the topic of the thread, which primarily addresses redistribution and regulation.

It is a bit tangential, I admit. However, there's plenty of good moral reasons to contibute to the public good that don't involve "parasitism." I'm planning on being a science teacher when I graduate, not because it's the most luctative or exciting career option available to me, but because I want a career that contributes to the public good of education. I'd be forging more direct benefits for myself to, ideally, contribute to society as a whole. Is that amoral, from Rand's perspective?

There's plenty of people who've dedicated their lives to thankless, low paying, and even dangerous jobs when they could have had safer and more lucrative jobs, just because they believe in the good they can do. That's a form of altruism, isn't it?

 

[Cain]

Wolfman,

Yours is an extensive rationalization. Suppose you're in San Diego and you meet a girl you like. You're walking around town and encounter an advocate for the homeless. Earlier in your walk the woman you're attempting to romance (or seduce) commented on the shameful and nearly omnipresent poverty. Normally you would not give these charities the time of day, but you see an opportunity to impress a potential sex partner. Go down your list looking for ominous parallels:

Presumably the poor benefit from your donation. Why deny them this benefit at the expense of being your true a-hole self? Now, the exchange is primarily motivated by self-interest, but can you be an entirely bad person if you're actually helping others? I think not! Moreover, everyone knows we do most things out of self-interest. Lots of people say they think their contributions to charities are selfish because they derive a natural high off it (psychological egoism). And so on. Humans are extremely good at making up excuses after-the-fact for what they truly want to do.

Then perhaps you should read Atlas Shrugged. It's stylistically flawed (to put it mildly), but as a defense of capitalism - the "Capitalist Manifesto", if you will - it is unsurpassed. Read it with an open, yet critical - dare I say skeptical? - mind, because there is a lot of wisdom in it. One of my favorite nuggets that I keep in my personal skeptic's toolbox is (paraphrasing) the admonition that "There are no contradictions. If you think you have encountered a contradiction, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong."

Oh, great, I've already read over 1,000 pages of Rand's scribblings already, and now I'm supposed to invest the time and energy to plow through a tome from which I will most likely realize no benefit -- other than being able to SAY I read it, and it predictably sucked.

This is confirmation of your claim that you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, because anyone who's read it and understood it would not make a statement like that. Her point is that everyone will be better off when everyone is free to look after his own self-interest, and is free to interact with others to the extent that he harms no one else.

1) Nearly all egoists are unwitting utilitarians; 2) Nearly all egoists are unconvincing utilitarians because there are demonstrable cases where acting contrary to one's self-interests maximizes aggregate utility. Perhaps one could argue that we should generally be self-interested a la Smith, but not always.

In any case, I can confidently say you're misunderstanding Rand's argument. Here's the banner quote from capitalism.org, an Objectivist jizz-site:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does -- if that catch-phrase has any meaning -- but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."

This is precisely one of the unconventional appeals of Rand -- she has boldly claimed the "moral" ground. Lots of people argue socialism is well-meaning and "ideal" but human nature is too corrupt; it just doesn't work. Certain moral autistics find Rand exhilarating and refreshingly honest because she calls hogwash on that widespread disposition. She says capitalism isn't just efficient, but moral. Capitalism is not only natural, but ideal.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

One of my favorite nuggets that I keep in my personal skeptic's toolbox is (paraphrasing) the admonition that "There are no contradictions. If you think you have encountered a contradiction, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong."

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

 

[Admiral]

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

You misunderstand. The quote ("there are no contradictions") was NOT a defense of what she believed (she wasn't saying a certain authority makes no contradictions), she was saying that reality makes no contradictions- something that I'm sure skeptics would agree with.

 

[mijopaalmc]

This is not remotely skeptical. To assume that any authority is perfect and makes no contradictions is naive and foolish. You might be wrong, as you often are, but so might Rand.

Uh....it's actually a fairly common form of argumentation here, probably second only to setting up straw men. I've personally been told that I am "misinterpreting the literature" when I cite literature on various topics that contradicts the majority opinion here and therefore the premises of my arguments and consequently the conclusion I draw from them are wrong.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Sorry but Ayn Rand is a joke.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You misunderstand. The quote ("there are no contradictions") was NOT a defense of what she believed (she wasn't saying a certain authority makes no contradictions), she was saying that reality makes no contradictions- something that I'm sure skeptics would agree with.

Oh, that's not what I thought it meant. "Reality" makes no contradictions? That may or may not be true. Phsyics at the macro scale and quandtum physics don't yet agree, so I'd tend to say that we just don't know if the universe is or is not self-contradictory.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, that's not what I thought it meant. "Reality" makes no contradictions? That may or may not be true. Phsyics at the macro scale and quandtum physics don't yet agree, so I'd tend to say that we just don't know if the universe is or is not self-contradictory.

Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

I got my first education in this area from my father (who never read Rand AFAIK) when I was about twelve and I decided to show him how clever I was one day with the old stumper question, "What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?"

In his usual gentle manner that got us into more than a few shouting matches over the years, he gave me an answer. "If you have an irresistible force, an immovable object is an impossibility. If you have an imovable object, then there can be no such thing as an irresistible force. Stop being so stupid."

He was saying what Rand was saying: There are no paradoxes.

 

[EGarrett]

Thanks for the video, EGarrett.

I happen to be finishing up Atlas Shrugged right now, so while I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist, I'd like to respond to your issue about altruism.

You said yourself that man needs other men's knowledge and cooperation- COOPERATION, not altruism. People work together to serve each other's interests- that's what business is. It's based on voluntary consent.

However, when you start insisting that men should be allowed to force others to give him knowledge and cooperation in order to achieve happiness, THAT'S when Rand would get furious at you. She'd compare it to slavery- what right does someone have to take someone else's ideas and products (in effect, their minds) in order to achieve happiness?

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes a society whose justification is generally similar to what you said about building an efficient society with efficient technology. In practice, though, this means that when someone is successful, when they develop a new metal or a new technology, the government seizes it and uses it "for the benefit of society," meaning that people are punished for spurring technological progress. How is this system one that will help men achieve happiness? Even if it somehow suceeded, it would be a society in which the only kind of happiness one would be allowed to achieve would be unearned- if anyone does work to earn wealth, it would be taken away from them.

Maybe I'm missing your point, though- if I am, please be more specific.

Thanks for the reply. I think the issue is just confusion of words. When I hear altruism, I think of the evolved-practice that's described in the Wikipedia article for altruism. When Ayn says altruism, she means forced sacrifice. I don't think that's a good idea either.

 

[mumblethrax]

You misunderstand. The quote ("there are no contradictions") was NOT a defense of what she believed (she wasn't saying a certain authority makes no contradictions), she was saying that reality makes no contradictions- something that I'm sure skeptics would agree with.

I don't agree with it. Rand is butchering Aristotle's law of non-contradiction here in order to sneak in her premises--if "reality" makes no contradictions, it is only because it makes no dictions at all, which is not something interesting to say about either the universe or logic. If, on the other hand, you believe as Rand does that the universe is bound by formal language, there are some well known paradoxes that cause us to do more than merely examine our premises (Grelling-Nelson, for example).

It's also not particularly skeptical to accept that the law of non-contradiction describes the natural world--it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Kerberos]

Perhaps. I'm not convinced, but then again, I'm no physicist. But what Rand was saying was that a proposition and the negation of that proposition can not both be true at the same time.

I got my first education in this area from my father (who never read Rand AFAIK) when I was about twelve and I decided to show him how clever I was one day with the old stumper question, "What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?"

In his usual gentle manner that got us into more than a few shouting matches over the years, he gave me an answer. "If you have an irresistible force, an immovable object is an impossibility. If you have an imovable object, then there can be no such thing as an irresistible force. Stop being so stupid."

Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

The unstopable force can be deflected without stopping, leaving the unstoppable force unstopped and the unmovable object unmoved.

 

[Admiral]

Actually I don't think that answer is correct. There could be both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force could simply pass through the immovable object, just like sunlight can go through a window without being stopped and without the window being moved. An immovable object and an unstoppable force can therefore coexist. QED.

Of cause that answer doesn’t involve a contradiction either

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

Fine, change the premise. The force and the object are wave functions, and can through one another if properly synchronized without anything being penetrated, like some elaborately over explained Star Trek gimmick.

 

[Tony]

Why are you pointing out that you haven't taken the time to comprehend why people think altruism is immoral?

Why are you pointing out you haven't taken the time to comprehend why I think the premise is absurd?

 

[Admiral]

Thanks for the reply. I think the issue is just confusion of words. When I hear altruism, I think of the evolved-practice that's described in the Wikipedia article for altruism. When Ayn says altruism, she means forced sacrifice.

I was a little too vague. Rand also doesn't support people being guilty for not helping others. She believes people should help others because they want to- it's a strange distinction.

Interestingly, it's not too far from the (rather corny) adage "Don't give until it hurts. Give until it feels good."

I don't think that's a good idea either.

Really? I believe you support redistribution of wealth (welfare, etc). You don't believe that's forcing people to give something up for the sake of others?

 

[Admiral]

Fine, change the premise. The force and the object are wave functions, and can through one another if properly synchronized without anything being penetrated, like some elaborately over explained Star Trek gimmick.

You don't see why that's still "cheating"?

 

[Kerberos]

Well, you're sort of avoiding the point of the question. Call it an immovable, impermeable object if you want.

Of cause I am, but pointless linguistic sophistry is practically the raison d'etre for this sub-forum isn't it?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You don't see why that's still "cheating"?

No. The premise explains nothing but that the force is unstoppable and the object immovable.

 

[Tony]

While I appreciate your sentiment, Tony...I think you're missing the point.

I myself run a non-profit organization, and have to make appeals for financial support. When I first targeted multinational companies, I gave presentations which appealed to their altruistic sensibilities...and got almost nowhere. But when I changed my presentation to appeal to more selfish motivations (better public image, good PR, advertising/marketing opportunities, etc.), I was far more successful.

Alright.

And quite frankly, I like this way better. I tend to feel more guilty -- as was stated earlier, somewhat "parasitic" -- requesting people to give me money when there's no quantifiable benefit for them. I'm basically coming, hat in hand, and begging.

I can understand your guilt, I used to feel guilty, like I was begging, when I would ask companies for a job application, but I don't think it follows that altruism is immoral. Nor do I neccessarily think that a parasitic relationship, when the party is willing and has given explicit consent, is immoral. Is it immoral for a mother to carry a child and give birth?

On the other hand, when I present it to them as a win-win situation, where both sides derive quantifiable benefits, not only are they happier about giving, but I feel more confident about getting up in front of them and asking for money.

Ok.

Think about it this way -- altruistic appeals mostly rely on instilling a sense of guilt in the other party.

Mostly? I'm not sure of that.

"Oh, look at these poor people, you have so much more than them, it would be selfish for you not to help, you should give us money." And, quite frankly, I do consider such an approach to be arguably immoral.

I agree, but that isn't altuism per se but merely a cynical approach to it. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's anymore immoral to appeal to someone's guilt than it is to appeal to their greed.

Whereas I see nothing inherently immoral in saying, "You help us, we help you; both sides benefit and come out ahead."

Neither do I, nor do I think it's immoral for a person to have an unselfish devotion to others.