Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[RandFan]

Okay, since you insist.

Rand was very strict in her method. It was the individual, and the society. Very, very rarely did she discuss issues of say - family units. Had she done so, that would have superficially thrown a wrench in the works, but not really. You are close to asking questions about the nature of relationships in a family, proper or improper, and this is a Rand stayed clear of. Rather she looked at the relationship of the individual to the larger culture.

I believe that Rand would have said (and of course paraphrasing never really works) that numerous attitudes and behaviors proper within a family or intimate relationships are improperly and by way of manipulators applied to the society at large, and at that point they contribute to dysfunction, corruption and inefficiency.

Thanks. I really appreciate your response though I confess frustration on my part.

My questions are direct and do not necessarily need to be answered with an eye to Rand or Objectivism. Perhaps we could try this another way, if you wouldn't mind indulging me, let's take this a bit slower. Forget Rand for now. Let's focus only on altruism and the nature of humans.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Now, of course you can argue that benevolent impulses exist because of self-interest but I think you understand my point. Let me however give an example.

• I want to buy a new car.
• I want to donate to Habitat For Humanity Having been poor and without good housing I believe that it is a very worthy cause.
• I can't do both. I barely have enough to buy the new car.
• My current car is in good shape and is more than sufficient to meet my needs for at least another year at which time I will have saved up enough money to buy a car.
• I really want a new car.

Would you agree that there is a conflict here?

Please feel free to offer all of the commentary you want but in the least answer this question. If you don't think you can answer with a yes or no then please explain why.

 

[Cain]

Well, I will just repeat the quote again. You want references?

"I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government.

Now you mentioned two or so cases where she was asked about her personal opinions on the subject. In interviews. She answered she didn't like it, etc. My point - substantiated - is that she was an early supporter of gay rights, and very serious about it.

Your point is what, exactly??? That she was not?

Yes or no please.

All this "rights" business is you trying to impose a context on what I was discussing; I never commented on the matter (in that frame) because it was beside the point.

I do marvel at your attempt to soften Rand's bigotry by calling her an early supporter of gay rights. She could hardly be considered progressive when we take into account the fact she was living in New York city, and aware of the libertarian politics which attracted a number of "out" folks (including Roy Childs). I see in the relevant section of the aforementioned _Ayn Rand Cult_, N. Branden would change his seat "if an evidently gay man sat down at the next table." No doubt Branden's political views at the time (prior to being ousted) were consistent with Rand's. Sorry if I'm not too impressed with Rand's view that the government should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It seems unremarkable given her well-known politics.

Here's another anecdote from ARC, p 119:

Once, at a Nureyev ballet, friend Joan Blumenthal whispered that she wished Rudolph would quit telegraphing gay signals to other male dancers because it was detracting from the performance. Rand, shocked at her implication that Nureyev might be gay, cited as contrary evidence the prominent bulge in his leotard."

Also, anyone familiar with Rand should know she did not neatly separate her moral and political views. The politics of the Libertarian Party are more or less consistent with "Objectivism," but orthodox adherents, following their guru, reject the LP on the grounds it lacks a proper moral foundation.

Your point is what, exactly???

My point is that she was a bigot, and attempted to justify her nutty views by appealing to her nutty "psychology." It's perfectly possible for a bigot to "support gay rights," though what that entails today and what it may have meant 35 years ago are rather different. It's also possible to self-identify as an "Objectivist" or a Republican and at the same time be gay.

My apologies, but I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at in these two paragraphs.

Good.

 

[mhaze]

All this "rights" business is you trying to impose a context on what I was discussing; I never commented on the matter (in that frame) because it was beside the point.

I do marvel at your attempt to soften Rand's bigotry by calling her an early supporter of gay rights. She could hardly be considered progressive when we take into account the fact she was living in New York city, and aware of the libertarian politics which attracted a number of "out" folks (including Roy Childs). I see in the relevant section of the aforementioned _Ayn Rand Cult_, N. Branden would change his seat "if an evidently gay man sat down at the next table." No doubt Branden's political views at the time (prior to being ousted) were consistent with Rand's. Sorry if I'm not too impressed with Rand's view that the government should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It seems unremarkable given her well-known politics.

Here's another anecdote from ARC, p 119:

Also, anyone familiar with Rand should know she did not neatly separate her moral and political views. The politics of the Libertarian Party are more or less consistent with "Objectivism," but orthodox adherents, following their guru, reject the LP on the grounds it lacks a proper moral foundation.

My point is that she was a bigot, and attempted to justify her nutty views by appealing to her nutty "psychology." It's perfectly possible for a bigot to "support gay rights," though what that entails today and what it may have meant 35 years ago are rather different. It's also possible to self-identify as an "Objectivist" or a Republican and at the same time be gay.

Pardon me, but I think I am beginning to understand your overall point of view. You have repeatedly mentioned "the cult", "objectist", "Adherents" etc, now "brandon", and have a number of anecdotal and incidental events which if I understand correctly - along with the book "Ayn Rand Cult" which I have not read - these together, in your view, substantiate that she was a bigot.

But I have no interest in anecdotal evidence, and no interest whatsoever discussing in the "ayn rand cult", "objectists" in the abstract or general, however the phrases may be used, whatever spin might be put on them.

I'm a stickler for original sources.

 

[BPSCG]

Please return to regularly scheduled discussion: Can God make a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it???

Ah, an apparent paradox.

Here's the faulty underlying premise: There is a God, at least in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense.

 

[BPSCG]

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

Emphasis mine. This is my chief beef with Rand - her belief in free will. I don't believe there actually exists such a creature. Every single action we take from the moment of birth to our last breath, is the compulsion to achieve inner contentment. Whether that means choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla or risking one's life to save another, that action is determined by the need to satisfy one's need for inner contentment. For more on that, read Benedict Spinoza's The Ethics, or, for a more approachable read, Mark Twain's essay, What is Man?

And for a truly fascinating look at Twain and Spinoza's parallel views on free will, examined side by side, with a link to an extract from Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, click here. Twain was born 200 years after Spinoza, and there's no evidence he ever encountered Spinoza's writing, yet their arguments regarding free will are amazingly similar. I'm not sure how much, if any, of Rand's views are invalidated by her belief in free will. The problem with altruism isn't the fact that someone may decide that an act of self-sacrifice will give him the greatest inner contentment (or at least the least inner dissatisfaction), but rather that society attempts to impose a moral obligation on him to make that self-sacrifice. I don't see that the nonexistence of free will changes any of that.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks. I really appreciate your response though I confess frustration on my part.

My questions are direct and do not necessarily need to be answered with an eye to Rand or Objectivism.

• I want to buy a new car.
• I want to donate to Habitat For Humanity Having been poor and without good housing I believe that it is a very worthy cause.
• I can't do both. I barely have enough to buy the new car.
• My current car is in good shape and is more than sufficient to meet my needs for at least another year at which time I will have saved up enough money to buy a car.
• I really want a new car.

Would you agree that there is a conflict here?

There is only a conflict between your wanting to donate to HFH vs keeping it; the various issues of how/when to buy a new car still retain the cash in the house. The conflict is because you say you want to donate to HFH. Rand would discuss this but not view it as an issue of primary importance; of primary importance would be say....forcing people to work for HFH as is done in the criminal justice system in America today, enforced altruism or essentially a type of slavery.

One might go into the "Is HFH really a good thing at all, and on what basis" but that is not the point. You have already stated you want to give them money. I can't see any reason to question that. As a more explicit definition here is Rand's take on the 1960 Democratic platform (bold is mine):

America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capital*ism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pur*suit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin. <snipped 2 paragraphs>

The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.
The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national con*science sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportu*nity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?
​

Opinions?

 

[mhaze]

Emphasis mine. This is my chief beef with Rand - her belief in free will. I don't believe there actually exists such a creature. Every single action we take from the moment of birth to our last breath, is the compulsion to achieve inner contentment.

Rand said this same thing, you are in agreement with her. I would reference it but just posted a longie and don't want to hog the forum

 

[Cain]

Pardon me, but I think I am beginning to understand your overall point of view. You have repeatedly mentioned "the cult", "objectist", "Adherents" etc, now "brandon", and have a number of anecdotal and incidental events which if I understand correctly - along with the book "Ayn Rand Cult" which I have not read - these together, in your view, substantiate that she was a bigot.

But I have no interest in anecdotal evidence, and no interest whatsoever discussing in the "ayn rand cult", "objectists" in the abstract or general, however the phrases may be used, whatever spin might be put on them.

I'm a stickler for original sources.

Yes, such a stickler for original sources that earlier you approvingly cite Wikipedia and an Ayn Rand FAQ. Clearly you're not much of a stick*ler for accurate quotat*ions: It's Branden, not Brandon; Objectivist, not objectist.

Walker's bibliography has two sources for J. Blumenthal. One is a personal interview he conducted Oct. 31, 1991, and the other is an interview conducted by Karen Reedstorm for _Full Context_.

Homosexuals need to check their premises.

 

[RandFan]

There is only a conflict between your wanting to donate to HFH vs keeping it; the various issues of how/when to buy a new car still retain the cash in the house. The conflict is because you say you want to donate to HFH.

No the conflict is because I want to donate to HFH and I want to buy a new car. It's my hypothetical and it was simply to point out that there does exist conflict. The conflict is not between whether or not to keep the cash or give it to HFH. In my hypothetical I really want a new car.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Sheesh why is this like pulling teeth?

 

[mhaze]

No the conflict is because I want to donate to HFH and I want to buy a new car. It's my hypothetical and it was simply to point out that there does exist conflict. The conflict is not between whether or not to keep the cash or give it to HFH. In my hypothetical I really want a new car.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between impulses that are self interest in nature and benevolent ones?

Sheesh why is this like pulling teeth?

You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, such a stickler for original sources that earlier you approvingly cite Wikipedia and an Ayn Rand FAQ. Clearly you're not much of a stick*ler for accurate quotat*ions: It's Branden, not Brandon; Objectivist, not objectist.

Walker's bibliography has two sources for J. Blumenthal. One is a personal interview he conducted Oct. 31, 1991, and the other is an interview conducted by Karen Reedstorm for _Full Context_.

Homosexuals need to check their premises.

Tablet computer translates poorly from scribbling, my bad. Went to Wpedia to find your sources, seemed reasonable.

 

[RandFan]

You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.

I'll get back to the hypothetical in a moment. I can see that it is distracting you. For now, let's focus on the question. You know, the one in red. Just the question.

Ok, Let me see if I can't make this even more clear. The following question is what I would like to know. I've colored the text red so it will be easy to identify. It is the only question that I'm interested in at this moment in time. See if you can focus on it and it alone. Empty your mind of the nasty complex hypothetical and just focus on the question. If you should spot in this post any other questions, please ignore them. They are rhetorical in nature only. I only want you to answer the question that is in red text, got it? Red text. The question immediatly follows.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

my god how hard can this really be? Wait, I'm being punked, right?

 

[RandFan]

You're being unclear. 1st sentence you want 2 things. 4th sentence you want 1.

Ok, now for my hypothetical.

1. The 1st sentence is the dilemma.
2. It's a simple dilemma.
3. It's a dilemma between 2 desires, a desire that serves only me (a selfish desire) and a desire to help others.
4. The 4th sentence isn't the dilemma.
5. The 4th sentence doesn't conflict, contradict or add to the dilemma delineated in the 1st sentence.
6. The purpose of the 4th sentence was to make clear the selfish desire.
7. Since the thing I want in the 4th sentence is identical to one of the things that I want in the 1st sentence then it should stand to reason that given the fact that I've outlined the dilemma before and I restated the dilemma in the post you question that sentence 4 would not suddenly alter or add to the dilemma.

I'm assuming that there will be additional questions about the hypothetical especially in regard to the number of things wanted in the hypothetical (hint 2) so I took the liberty of numbering these premises so we could discuss them ad infinitum. Won't that be fun?

I suppose I deserve this.

 

[mhaze]

Ok, now for my hypothetical.

1. The 1st sentence is the dilemma.
2. It's a simple dilemma.
3. It's a dilemma between 2 desires, a desire that serves only me (a selfish desire) and a desire to help others.

of numbering these premises so we could discuss them ad infinitum.
Won't that be fun?

I suppose I deserve this.

You are making a simple thing complicated so then it can be discussed ad infinitum ?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The subject of altruism is a difficult one, often misunderstood, but it is none the less an important part of Rand's work. I have taken the liberty to quote below a from "The Virtue of Selfishness", chapter 3: Ethics of Emergencies. It is a sample of perhaps a dozen expositions of the concepts, so it is by no means complete.

A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dan*gerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.

Good, I now see that she does not feel that for example doctors should be required to treat people who they are not sure can pay if they are dieing. And volunteer fire and ambulance would be immoral.

 

[Beerina]

RandFan,

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be. Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved.

Ironically, you just demonstrated why it is logical.

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.

As Ayn Rand said once, "The question is not, 'should I or shouldn't I give a beggar a dime?' The question is, 'Should I or should I not have to buy my freedom, dime by dime?'"

 

[hgc]

Ironically, you just demonstrated why it is logical.

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.

As Ayn Rand said once, "The question is not, 'should I or shouldn't I give a beggar a dime?' The question is, 'Should I or should I not have to buy my freedom, dime by dime?'"

Should you have to buy your freedom? Someone's got to pay for it. By that I mean that your freedom has a lot to do with a situation of social stability that allows for the predictable ability to accumulate and maintain property. It's not a matter of "should," and more a matter of "can" and "will" to whatever extent.

 

[RandFan]

mhaze,

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

I really do get that you are being a prick BTW.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze,

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

I really do get that you are being a prick BTW.

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?"

How about something really simple.

You want the ice cream cone.
The baby has the ice cream cone.
No one is looking.
What do you do?

 

[RandFan]

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?"

I apologize for calling you a name. That was inappropriate. I just think what you are doing is not necessary and it certainly isn't funny. So you are yanking my chain by being obtuse. That's fine. There is always ignore.