Ayn Rand versus Religion

[HansMustermann]

The reverse of that argument is if you are compelled to treat / pay for / etc. etc. etc. what does that make you?

There are shades of grey between _compelled_ and seeing no rationale to do it. Introducing the cost to self as a factor is also too blanket to really cover the topic in any satisfactory degree.

E.g., if you notice a fire, even calling the firemen is ultimately at some cost to self. Even the time to make that call. But it's a very small cost to self vs a very large cost to someone else if you don't.

And, ultimately, that's how society always worked. You could just sit and watch the neighbour's house burn down, or even take the Crassus route and make a killing out of it, but we'd all be worse off for it. The first fire would have wiped out any town.

Or you could sit and watch as someone breaks into the neighbour's house, but ultimately that would defeat everyone's home security if we all did that. Most of the physical security isn't in having a door that can't be kicked in, and bulletproof doors, and unpickable locks, but mostly in having a "my property starts here" kind of marker and at most a delay that increases the thief's chances of being noticed. If everyone took the view that there's no rationale to help when they see a thief, then someone could just come kick a door in at their leisure, in broad daylight, safe in the knowledge that nobody will intervene.

Ultimately, society always worked because of those little things that everyone does for everyone else. In other words, "enlightened self-interest", if you need a name on it.

You're not compelled in the sense that anyone will send you to jail for not calling the cops, nor vote to kick you out of town like in ancient Greece, but there is a moral expectation that you too will do your part whenever you can.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are shades of grey between _compelled_ and seeing no rationale to do it. Introducing the cost to self as a factor is also too blanket to really cover the topic in any satisfactory degree.

E.g., if you notice a fire, even calling the firemen is ultimately at some cost to self. Even the time to make that call. But it's a very small cost to self vs a very large cost to someone else if you don't.

And, ultimately, that's how society always worked. You could just sit and watch the neighbour's house burn down, or even take the Crassus route and make a killing out of it, but we'd all be worse off for it. The first fire would have wiped out any town.

Or you could sit and watch as someone breaks into the neighbour's house, but ultimately that would defeat everyone's home security if we all did that. Most of the physical security isn't in having a door that can't be kicked in, and bulletproof doors, and unpickable locks, but mostly in having a "my property starts here" kind of marker and at most a delay that increases the thief's chances of being noticed. If everyone took the view that there's no rationale to help when they see a thief, then someone could just come kick a door in at their leisure, in broad daylight, safe in the knowledge that nobody will intervene.

Ultimately, society always worked because of those little things that everyone does for everyone else. In other words, "enlightened self-interest", if you need a name on it.

You're not compelled in the sense that anyone will send you to jail for not calling the cops, nor vote to kick you out of town like in ancient Greece, but there is a moral expectation that you too will do your part whenever you can.

You bring up an important issue which I have yet to see included in anything Rand believed. That is, one benefit in altruism is you might benefit from someone else's. So your own actions might not have a direct return result, but if most people act in the interest of the whole, you are likely to reap a benefit from your actions indirectly.

 

[six7s]

You bring up an important issue which I have yet to see included in anything Rand believed. That is, one benefit in altruism is you might benefit from someone else's. So your own actions might not have a direct return result, but if most people act in the interest of the whole, you are likely to reap a benefit from your actions indirectly.

If Rand really did fail to acknowledge this screamingly obvious benefit of altruism, then I'm genuinely gobsmacked that her thoughts on selfishness as a virtue ('neither sacrificing yourself for others, nor sacrificing others for yourself) has ever been taken seriously by anyone capable of tying their own shoelaces

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Rand really did fail to acknowledge this screamingly obvious benefit of altruism, then I'm genuinely gobsmacked that her thoughts on selfishness as a virtue ('neither sacrificing yourself for others, nor sacrificing others for yourself) has ever been taken seriously by anyone capable of tying their own shoelaces

I think what one needs to consider is there are at least two distinctly differently thinking humans in our social circles.

One group likes big gas guzzlers and America the bully, while the other is more of the consider the rest of the world type.

This is a gross oversimplification, of course, and there are probably many other types of philosophies operating out there. But surely you know the guy with the gas guzzler who says who cares if the globe warms or there are people starving in China. He's not going to recycle squat and he's certainly not going to care about the resources he uses as long as he can afford them.

Then there are the recyclers, who own tiny cars, who volunteer at the local food bank and keep the thermostat turned down.

These people in my stereotyped examples are frankly two different beasts. One can easily see the attraction to Rand's ideas if one is in the first example.

 

[six7s]

One group likes big gas guzzlers and America the bully, while the other is more of the consider the rest of the world type.

This is a gross oversimplification, of course<snip/>

These people in my stereotyped examples are frankly two different beasts. One can easily see the attraction to Rand's ideas if one is in the first example.

Gross oversimplification or not, it helps explain a lot! Thanks

If Rand's selfishness really does equate to the gas guzzler mentality, then - WRT to the OP - I see no real difference... such a myopic view is essentially the same as Douglas Adams' puddle-dweller in Is there an Artificial God?

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode.

As far as I can tell, all religions (and, of course, their gods) are concocted by people who want/need to believe they are somehow 'special' - distinct from every other species on the planet; past, present and future

If this is what Rand Fans think/believe, then... well... good luck to 'em

 

[Rockingham AH Deist]

It's sad that she went insane and her followers, like sheep, agreed with her every whim.

Source?

As far as I can tell, all religions (and, of course, their gods) are concocted by people who want/need to believe they are somehow 'special' - distinct from every other species on the planet; past, present and future

I have a suspicion that that's true not just of all religions but also most ideologies, and the overwhelming majority of humans in general.

 

[HansMustermann]

But of course it is wonderful when you can take advantage of situations to extort others. Like if I have an epipen and you are dying of anaphylatic shock, I can demand as much payment as I want and have no responsibility to actually treat you unless you agree to my terms. Think about how profitable this would make emergency medicine.

Crassus was a fine historical example of doing even worse than that.

While he's credited with having the first fire brigade, that's only in a very loose sense of the word. What he did was exploit the people's tendency to not think straight in the panic of seeing their house burn.

He'd show up at a fire and not negotiate a price to put the fire down, but negotiate a ridiculously low price to buy the burning house. (In the process basically preventing at least one family member from trying to put down the fire.) Meanwhile his men would do similar negotiations with the adjacent houses.

The scam worked because most people seeing their house burn would think that if it burns down it will be worth nothing. So even accepting a pittance is better than nothing. Crassus knew that even burned down, it was worth the value of the residential plot of land in Rome, which was worth quite a bit.

So after buying the burning house, his men would tear the house down. Then Crassus would build a new one on the spot, and sell it for a tidy profit. Again, most of the price not being the construction cost, but being a home in a desirable place in Rome. With any luck, the surrounding houses wouldn't have caught fire yet, so he could just resell them as they were. If not, they'd be torn down and rebuilt too.

The thing about his scheme was that he didn't even help in exchange for money. The victims would have actually been better off if his "fire brigade" hadn't showed up at all.

I guess Rand would have been proud of him

 

[ponderingturtle]

None of which involve compulsion.

Only if you are fine with fine and jail time sure.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Crassus was a fine historical example of doing even worse than that.

Yep he would make a wonderful randian hero.

I guess Rand would have been proud of him

Well the best I have seen her supporters say is that these actions are wrong, but trying to prevent them would be much much worse.

 

[MontagK505]

Only if you are fine with fine and jail time sure.

You are not compelled to take on any of those jobs. Outside of a lifeboat situtation I've never heard of anyone being drafted to be a EMT etc.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution

One problem: While being an atheist, Rand was not a fan of evolution.

Her associate/boy-toy Nathaniel Brandon is quoted:

"I remember being astonished to hear [Rand] say one day, 'After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.' I asked her, 'You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?' She shrugged and responded, 'I'm really not prepared to say,' or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable."

 

[marplots]

There's at least two rational reasons she missed. The first was covered when you look at the larger picture -- altruism being part of a greater social web and the idea that you might, in turn, benefit from future help.

But the second is the harm I do to myself when I do not render aid. The harm to my feelings of self worth, self image, and my ideas about what sort of world I would prefer to live in. Since I prefer a world where mutual aid is valued, it behooves me to act toward that (perhaps unattainable) future state.

In crisis though, I don't think any of this is rational or logical. It's alogical and revolves around a quick reaction without analysis or deep introspection. I would likely act (either for good or ill) before I even thought much about it.

 

[six7s]

Her associate/boy-toy Nathaniel Brandon is quoted:

...there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable."

Hardly surprising... bearing in mind that the theory of evolution actually makes sense...

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Hardly surprising... bearing in mind that the theory of evolution actually makes sense...

I think Rand's "discomfort" with evolution had to do with her fear that if human behavior had a biological basis, her arguments from "free will" fall apart thus allowing the "collectivist" she railed against to declare every manner of tyranny excusable.

It's sort of like the fundy's argument about evolution and materialism: If all we are objects without souls then anything (rape, murder, theft) must be permissible... somehow.

 

[MontagK505]

I think Rand's "discomfort" with evolution had to do with her fear that if human behavior had a biological basis, her arguments from "free will" fall apart thus allowing the "collectivist" she railed against to declare every manner of tyranny excusable.

It's sort of like the fundy's argument about evolution and materialism: If all we are objects without souls then anything (rape, murder, theft) must be permissible... somehow.

It never occours to a fundy that even someone without a "soul" might want to discourge muder, rape and theft.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

It never occours to a fundy that even someone without a "soul" might want to discourge muder, rape and theft.

Fundamentalists... oh Hell, religionists in general, would tend to argue that "secular" morality is merely a facade that will eventually crumble as society falls further and further from their deity. Apparently, without fear of in a cosmic tyrant who will do unspeakable things to us by proxy after we die if we break his "rules," we'll suddenly realize that we can rape, murder and pillage to our black, Original-Sin-stained-heart's desire. "True" morality, they claim, has to come from their god because he is only thing that can make sure that the "good" are rewarded and the "evil" are punished regardless of what goes on in this world.

Therefore, any talk of morality from the position that the soul doesn't exist is considered absurd in Christian eyes, because Yahweh needs something to burn in Hell. Otherwise, uncaptured serial killers can literally get away with murder, and no one wants to a conceive a of universe where THAT happens.

 

[Nova Land]

Fundamentalists... oh Hell, religionists in general, would tend to argue that "secular" morality is merely a facade that will eventually crumble as society falls further and further from their deity.

That's an interesting claim. I'd be interested to know your source for it.

I'm religious, and that is not something I believe. It is not something I was raised to believe. And it expresses a sentiment quite contrary to what I have heard from many religious people (of a variety of religions) over the years.

There is a famous religious poem by James Leigh Hunt, "Abou Ben Adhem". The poem was originally published in 1834, and has been reprinted many times since.

In the poem, an angel is writing down the names of all who love God. Abou Ben Adhem sees this, and asks if his name is on the list. The angel looks, and says it is not; so Abou asks to be recorded as one who loves his fellow man.

The next night the angel returns with a different list:

... the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest.​

The theology underlying the poem is that it doesn't matter what religion, if any, that a person holds. It doesn't matter what name, if any, one assigns to God. It doesn't matter if you love your fellow beings for religious or for secular reasons -- just that you do love them.

Not every religious person holds to that belief; indeed, there are a very vocal number who don't. But as evidenced by the poem, and its popularity for going on 200 years, it is a moderately common belief among religious people. You might try to be more careful with over-generalizations in the future.

 

[Beerina]

Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath who wrote a rapist as a heroic character and his rape victim as the villain (for you know, making him go through the trouble of raping her when she secretly really wanted it), and who ultimately completely abandoned her entire philosophy. Who cares what she has to say about anything?

Not to defend erotic story items, but do you have evidence, oh, that being raped isn't far and away the number one sexual fantasy?

 

[Beerina]

Open question to all free thinkers:

In Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace in the 50's (availble online) she mentioned that she can find no rationale for helping one who is less fortunate then oneself. It appears that Ayn's philosophy on this point is an extreme version of survival of the fittest as applied to individual human beings. I was wondering if any others share this extreme view which I believe disregards social dynamics pertaining to human evolution (in Ayn's world-view, for instance, Stephen Hawking would necessarily have perished in 1974 when ALS ravaged his body and the human race would have been deprived of his later work.)

That's the popular, promoted, memetic point of view, sure.

In reality, well, here's a quote to explain it, which will be forgotten as people return to ranting about her based on incorrect notions fed them by power hungry politicians, whom her ideas eviscerate:

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes."

Emphasis mine. Note also how politics has inhaled making "the need of others" be the first moral purpose of your life, stealing it from religion.


BTW, one should also keep in mind that greedy, freedom-derived capitalism has lead to far fewer "beggars" and starving people, and to far more general health than anything else. It's easy to forget that, indeed, 95% of your population could be grindingly poor, even in 2010, and to instead kibitz about a few percent of the population, and to try to re-orient all society about serving their "needs", taking as granted, or even "automatic", the vast wealth generated in the West.

 

[Gregoire]

She also defined altruism as helping someone at a cost to yourself with no gain. So if you cared about a person and you helped them, that was not altruism, that was in your self interest because you cared about the person. (Source: her interview in ~1974 on the Phil Donahue Show, also available online on Youtube.)

This analysis makes sense.

I have been arguing with a friend about Objectivism and one key problem we continue to have is that Rand has apparently redefined a lot of terms (such as "altruism" and "selfishness"). I have told my friend that changing definitions of words makes Rand's philosophy easily misunderstood. But he has replied that such changes are necessary because the current definitions used by society refer to "invalid" concepts.