Why is Objectivism so maligned?

[Vagabond]

I like many of Rand's initial premises, such as personal responsibility for your own actions, thinking for yourself and all that but she takes all that to an illogical extreme in her effort to create a philosophy which makes selfishness a virtue.

It fails because there is no circumstance you can come up with to justify defending your country over your own personal needs. If you acted totally self serving in combat it would end up not being self serving because you would get fragged. Things like that happen when you are going against human nature.

Rand is an idealist. Her society in Atlas Shrugged works largely because it is in possession of a device that creates energy without using any. Such a device would solve countless human problems, her philosophy wouldn't solve any.

 

[rharbers]

It fails because there is no circumstance you can come up with to justify defending your country over your own personal needs.

When I defended my country, I was acting on my own special interests. I worked with the teams for my own special interests. Those interests were my family, friends, shipmates and nation; along with my life.

 

[Gestahl]

Um, and you have critically examined the categorical imperative and how it's deduced from the nature of practical reason?

Frankly, no, no it isn't. And this brings out the point that I made much earlier, which is that it's sometimes hard to see the difference between Rand and other philosophers if all you have is the basic intro-philosophy level summaries of what they've said.

Wow, have a large ego, do we? I have not, in fact, read Kant's formulation of that imperative. Why should I? What matters is the result, and how it is useful to me. I don't care how you formulated your mathemematical theory... if it doesn't work, it's not useful. In the end, you still have to check the results of your thought against reality, and Kant fails in my opinion.

Kant's categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.


Now, many murderers and thugs on the street think that you should survive on your own merit, murder is not wrong, and they expect others to try and murder them. It's part of the game. And this is right? They should act this way? They would will that it should become a universal law... whether rationally in their self-interest or not.

Then we get into the question of the particular situation. Were my wife raped, I would probably want to kill the rapist, and at the same time, would probably will that that become a universal law. Every situation is also different, and they all have mitigating circumstances, so much so that the imperative becomes trite and useless.

The problem with the imperative is that everyone wants to make the world in their own image of how they think it should be. Everyone has a huge amount of ego that they are right, and that the world would be a better place if everyone followed their morality. Therefore, whatever I wish to do, I would wish it to become a univeral law, if I am honest with myself, because I think I am *right*!

Ayn Rand probably wishes her morality be a universal law. Does that mean she should follow it and it is moral? Fundamentalists "know" they are right, and would wish that the entire world followed their morality. Does this make them right? It would seem Kant says they should kill homosexuals, in fact demands it if they wish that everyone would do the same.

The categorical imperative only makes moral sense as an absolute if you have the axiom that self-interest as the motivator and arbiter of what you wish to do. Otherwise it is chaos.

And why ought one to pursue their own survival or self interest? Even if it is a fact that they do so - or even do so necessarily that doesn't show much about whether or not they ought to. Specifically, it doesn't unless you allow in some other premises. You can't, in other words, deduce that you ought to p from premises that don't themselves contain some form of an ought statement - even if that's as minimal as "you ought to do what advances your own interests". Basically though, yes, if one has facts and a goal then one can deduce, possibly, an ought statement - because that's the sort of statement a statement of a goal is as well. The argument, however, was directed at the notion of deducing an ought from an is.

Because if one does not, one ceases to exist. If you want X, you ought to do Y. However, by the very fact you exist, you wish to keep existing (in general)... call it inertia of existence. You can produce oughts from future statements of intent. There is no "ought" to the goal of survival and self-interest... you do it because you exist, and if you did not have the goal of self-interest, you would not exist, and would not be able to act anyway. This is a goal implicit in the fact that you exist.

I think you would do well to actually read Hume carefully before dismissing his argument as facile - it's a fairly significant one and liable to be misconstrued.

What really confuses me, though, is that above you sound like you're saying that the only real sort of oughts there are are instrumental oughts (if one has goal x and means y are the means to x then one ought to y) - but these are precisely all that Hume allowed for. In fact, it was his entire picture of how reasoning worked in the first place. So I'm really entirely unsure of what you're disagreeing with at all.

I am sure it is quite subtle and beautiful. Unfortunately, he is missing an important point... and one that is grounded in reality which he conveniently ignores, and is one of the simplest possible.

I am disagreeing (perhaps not in the same style as Rand, I am still reading) that an is can't produce an ought, because the goal of self-survival and self-interest is a fact. You exist. This has the implicit goal of self-interest, or you would not exist. It is built in. The goal is not a rational one, it is a necessary one. Those are "ises", and from that implicitly comes the ought of self-interest, because goal becomes fact.

 

[Gestahl]

I like many of Rand's initial premises, such as personal responsibility for your own actions, thinking for yourself and all that but she takes all that to an illogical extreme in her effort to create a philosophy which makes selfishness a virtue.

It fails because there is no circumstance you can come up with to justify defending your country over your own personal needs.

Huh? Why should I? Most of the time you go to war in self-interest. Suppose the invading country thinks all Froodians (random group of people) should be exterminated, or have all property taken away. This is against my self-interest as I am a Froodian. So I would go to war to prevent that, and cooperate, because cooperating is in my self-interest to survive. Altruism and cooperation for the sake of self-interest is not conflicting.

If you acted totally self serving in combat it would end up not being self serving because you would get fragged. Things like that happen when you are going against human nature.

If you get fragged, then you aren't acting with a lot of self-interest, are you? You made an error in the objective evaluation of the worth and value to you of helping your platoon buddies.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Wow, have a large ego, do we? I have not, in fact, read Kant's formulation of that imperative. Why should I? What matters is the result, and how it is useful to me. I don't care how you formulated your mathemematical theory... if it doesn't work, it's not useful. In the end, you still have to check the results of your thought against reality, and Kant fails in my opinion.

Kant's categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.


Now, many murderers and thugs on the street think that you should survive on your own merit, murder is not wrong, and they expect others to try and murder them. It's part of the game. And this is right? They should act this way? They would will that it should become a universal law... whether rationally in their self-interest or not......

Yeah, I probably do have a large ego, but at least I try not to criticize arguments I haven't actually read - especially if it's the sort of thing where my criticism would make it pretty clear to anyone who has read it that I'm way off base. The amusing bit here, sadly to say, is that if you'd read Kant's working out of the catagorical imperative carefully you would know that you're drastically misreading it. And in fact that was precisely why I asked: Kant is not saying that one should act in ways one feels fine with other people acting. The resemblance of the catagorical imperative to the golden rule is interesting, and intended to act on our moral intuitions, but little more than that. Remember that Kant also argues that the catagorical imperative in the above (universal law) formulation is equivalent to (formulations in parentheses are approximate, and from memory) both the law of humanity (always treat others not merely as a means but as an end in themselves) and the law of autonomy (never act in a way inconsistent with the will's own legislation of universal law).

Does that sound like it would be true for your interpretation?

Like I said above, reading short summaries is only going to get you in trouble in the majority of cases.

I am sure it is quite subtle and beautiful. Unfortunately, he is missing an important point... and one that is grounded in reality which he conveniently ignores, and is one of the simplest possible.

I am disagreeing (perhaps not in the same style as Rand, I am still reading) that an is can't produce an ought, because the goal of self-survival and self-interest is a fact. You exist. This has the implicit goal of self-interest, or you would not exist. It is built in. The goal is not a rational one, it is a necessary one. Those are "ises", and from that implicitly comes the ought of self-interest, because goal becomes fact.

Oh good grief, why don't you try actually reading these people before you criticize your made up ideas of what they've argued?

Saying that existence has an implicit goal, while ludicrous, doesn't get you out of the is-ought problem in any case -- you're merely adding an 'ought' statement to the premises of any deduction. Look, the point is you can't get from:
1. If the red light is on, pushing the button will get me a treat.
2. The red light is on.
to
3. I ought to push the button.

And it won't get you that even if you add a 'desire a treat' premise -- unless you do exactly what you're doing up there, which is to say something like this:
1. If the red light is on, pushing the button will get me a treat.
2. The red light is on.
3. I desire a treat.
4. I ought to take the means necessary to satisfy my desires.

You can get "I ought to push the button." out of this second set of premises, but that's no longer getting an ought from an is -- even if you're sneaky about where you put that fourth premise.

 

[Gestahl]

Yeah, I probably do have a large ego, but at least I try not to criticize arguments I haven't actually read - especially if it's the sort of thing where my criticism would make it pretty clear to anyone who has read it that I'm way off base. The amusing bit here, sadly to say, is that if you'd read Kant's working out of the catagorical imperative carefully you would know that you're drastically misreading it. And in fact that was precisely why I asked: Kant is not saying that one should act in ways one feels fine with other people acting. The resemblance of the catagorical imperative to the golden rule is interesting, and intended to act on our moral intuitions, but little more than that. Remember that Kant also argues that the catagorical imperative in the above (universal law) formulation is equivalent to (formulations in parentheses are approximate, and from memory) both the law of humanity (always treat others not merely as a means but as an end in themselves) and the law of autonomy (never act in a way inconsistent with the will's own legislation of universal law).

Does that sound like it would be true for your interpretation?
[/b]

I don't see why not. If I have the mistaken impression that killing someone is good for them (because I disregard the facts of self-interest or have incorrect or farcical "facts"... like maybe they spend less time in hell), then I will kill them.

I am not acting in a way inconsistent with my will of universal law. If I were gay, and held the attitudes above, of course I would want someone to kill me, and every other gay person.

His third is a combination of statements one and two (your third is a restatement of the first), and thus consistent. There are no contradictions in the three different formulations.

The second formulation say to treat people as ends and not means... so? The second formulation makes no sense to me at all without some grounds as to what end we should treat people towards. Treating others as an end doesn't preclude immoral action. I can treat you as an end... literally, and kill you because of who you are. I treat you as an end because I think you are bad, and need to be destroyed for your own good (some people think can think that!). While I may be incorrect, that imperative says nothing about it. But then he says that treating people as a means is wrong, then in the first statement says that we should follow the categorical imperative. Does that mean our treatment of people is a means to follow that imperative? Kant's formulation only works if you take self-interest as the base, i.e. your own betterment as a guide. Otherwise any end is as good as any other.

My objections are standard ones, and one that many people have brought up.

You say it is intended to act on your moral intuitions, but little more than that. Well, what are those moral intuitions, and how can they be evaluated? Just because you wish people to follow your morals does not make them right, or mean you should actually perform them. They must be based on facts, and that is where the next argument comes in... getting from "is" to "ought".

Saying that existence has an implicit goal, while ludicrous, doesn't get you out of the is-ought problem in any case -- you're merely adding an 'ought' statement to the premises of any deduction. Look, the point is you can't get from:
1. If the red light is on, pushing the button will get me a treat.
2. The red light is on.
to
3. I ought to push the button.

And it won't get you that even if you add a 'desire a treat' premise -- unless you do exactly what you're doing up there, which is to say something like this:
1. If the red light is on, pushing the button will get me a treat.
2. The red light is on.
3. I desire a treat.
4. I ought to take the means necessary to satisfy my desires.

You can get "I ought to push the button." out of this second set of premises, but that's no longer getting an ought from an is -- even if you're sneaky about where you put that fourth premise.

You didn't even read what I said. Here is how it should read.

1. If the red light is on, pushing the button will get me a treat.
2. The red light is on.
3. I require food. (Not want, wish or desire)
4. I must take the means necessary to satisfy my needs.

If Hume says that you can't get "ought" from "is" then there is no need for any human action, because there isn't good, bad, or anything, existence is as good as non-existence. I don't accept that.

My argument is not really that you "ought" to do anything. My argument (and I think Rand's) is that by the very fact you exist means that you must "want" to keep existing, or you wouldn't exist. Your existence is not necessary, it is conditional on having self-interest. To say that you do not have the goal of self-interest is a contradiction to existing in the first place! Explain how that is ludicrous.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

My objections are standard ones, and one that many people have brought up.

I'll respond as soon as you can cite reputable philosophers (defined as "people who I am willing to believe have read and understood Kant", so you don't need to go searching for what Dennett or Nietzsche had to say, just any old scholar will do) raising these objections.

 

[Vagabond]

When I defended my country, I was acting on my own special interests. I worked with the teams for my own special interests. Those interests were my family, friends, shipmates and nation; along with my life.

You don't understand objectivism. You would never make a personal sacrifice for anything. Including friends, nation, shipmates whatever. You aren't acting in your own self interest if you make a personal sacrifice even for something that might ultimately be in your best interest.

 

[Vagabond]

If you get fragged, then you aren't acting with a lot of self-interest, are you? You made an error in the objective evaluation of the worth and value to you of helping your platoon buddies.<<<<

See what I said above. You are talking in general. You might be able to justify on an individual basis taking up arms to defend your country from invasion because this preserves you and your own self interest. However, once in combat you can't "help" anybody do anything, particularly anything that might result in your own injury or death, or even put you out severely. You would only take actions in which your own personal welfare wasn't at stake. You can't fight a war like that, and the whole thing becomes a contradiction to objectivism because you can't use it in such circumstances. That was my point, this one fact eliminates objectivism from reality. Particularly when Rand herself said there can be no contradictions.

 

[rharbers]

You don't understand objectivism. You would never make a personal sacrifice for anything. Including friends, nation, shipmates whatever. You aren't acting in your own self interest if you make a personal sacrifice even for something that might ultimately be in your best interest.

Your probably right. There are plenty of things I don't understand. But I love my daughter, my grandchildren and I have loved my nation. I'll kill for them. It is in my self interest. Maybe that is as close to Altruism as I will ever get. But you won't see me sacrificing myself needlessly.

 

[Gestahl]

I'll respond as soon as you can cite reputable philosophers (defined as "people who I am willing to believe have read and understood Kant", so you don't need to go searching for what Dennett or Nietzsche had to say, just any old scholar will do) raising these objections.

Let's not get into arguments from authority. If you want to refute what I wrote, please do so. I was mearly stating, perhaps over-stating, that these are not my ideas, and others have raised the same objections. You can use Google as well as I can, for Christ's sake.

Here, I will give you a start:

Ralph Walker, Kant, in the series The Arguments of the Philosophers, (London; 1978)

He lists several of the same arguments I do, including the one about gays (although he uses black slavery), the problem of treating people as ends (when we are "really" doing it to follow the imperative), the practical uselessness of it due to the myriad particulars of a situation, etc.

Here is an essay with some references:

http://noumenal.net/exiles/kant.html

 

[Gestahl]

However, once in combat you can't "help" anybody do anything, particularly anything that might result in your own injury or death, or even put you out severely. You would only take actions in which your own personal welfare wasn't at stake.

Huh?

So Rand would say shouldn't invest in the stock market? Bull.

Now Rand would not agree with the dude jumping on the live grendade to save his platoon... ultimate sacrifice is unwarranted. However, taking a risk to your own welfare (say rescuing a friend pinned down by fire, even with a moderate chance of being wounded, because you know he will rescue you later in another situation because of his temprement) to further your own self-interest is not a bad thing to Rand... being stupid and taking the wrong risks are.

Read the section in Atlas Shrugged where d'Anconia helps Rearden seal his iron crucible at risk to his own life. He does this because it is in his self-interest ultimately to help Rearden. Self-interest is not to be taken only in the immediate sense. Far be it from me to be an expert on Objectivism, but I don't see Rand thinking that way... acting in one's self-interest always involves risk.

 

[FreeChile]

> Neither does it matter whether the chair is there when I leave the room.

Of course it's there. People keep food in refrigerators because the food and the bacteria that would spoil it "are still there" when they leave the room.

Gosh!

Beerina, I am not sure you understood what I posted. What did you interpret from the statement "Neither does it matter whether the chair is there when I leave the room." Remember, we are talking about objectivism vs. subjectivism in this thread and not about existence.

 

[Vagabond]

Huh?

So Rand would say shouldn't invest in the stock market? Bull.

Now Rand would not agree with the dude jumping on the live grendade to save his platoon... ultimate sacrifice is unwarranted. However, taking a risk to your own welfare (say rescuing a friend pinned down by fire, even with a moderate chance of being wounded, because you know he will rescue you later in another situation because of his temprement) to further your own self-interest is not a bad thing to Rand... being stupid and taking the wrong risks are.

Read the section in Atlas Shrugged where d'Anconia helps Rearden seal his iron crucible at risk to his own life. He does this because it is in his self-interest ultimately to help Rearden. Self-interest is not to be taken only in the immediate sense. Far be it from me to be an expert on Objectivism, but I don't see Rand thinking that way... acting in one's self-interest always involves risk.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said. You are making a different point however. You are saying you can risk your life for a friend. I am saying in the heat of combat you can't use "objectivism" to decide whether to do something or not. You will either go with the heat of the moment, passion and rush to save your friend. Which I would argue is irrelevant. Doesn't matter to an objectivist if he is a friend or not. Or you would act counter to objectivism and do something altruistic. Very few people who have given their lives for something die knowing they were giving their lives. Most only thought they were risking their life and lost the wager. In my opinion objectivism falls apart in this circumstance. I am sure there are others, this is just the most obvious example to me.

 

[Gestahl]

I am saying in the heat of combat you can't use "objectivism" to decide whether to do something or not. You will either go with the heat of the moment, passion and rush to save your friend.

Well, "in the heat of the moment" you don't have the time to use any philosophy or critical thought... it's pretty much instinct and emotion at that point ;-).

 

[c4ts]

Because Atlas Shrugged was crap.

The Fountainhead wasn't bad, though.

 

[Vagabond]

Well, "in the heat of the moment" you don't have the time to use any philosophy or critical thought... it's pretty much instinct and emotion at that point ;-).

You are probably right, or at least mostly right. No way to be sure having never been in combat. However, I think there is more to it than that. My own personal philosophy, morality whatever you want to call it is so ingrained into me as a person, that it is possible for me to take quick and decisive action and still maintain it.

Most people don't have a consistant morality in the first place, they do whatever is convienient at the time. But, objectivism in particular is so complicated on a personal level, it would be hard to take any quick action having to decide first whether you were risking your life or not, or whether you were doing something that would benefit you. Example it would be objectivist to just let somebody die if you didn't think that person was of any benefit to you. Those kind of judgements are in my opinion counter to human nature thus why objectivism fails.

 

[Dagny]

Objectivism, as put forth by Rand does not say "do not help other people, ever" or "do not help someone if they're dying unless they are of some benifit". More precisley it is "do not help someone if that act will harm you".
Look up Hamilton's Rule. It solves the pesky problem of "altrusim" in biology, and I think would be if some use in this discussion.

 

[Vagabond]

Objectivism, as put forth by Rand does not say "do not help other people, ever" or "do not help someone if they're dying unless they are of some benifit". More precisley it is "do not help someone if that act will harm you".
Look up Hamilton's Rule. It solves the pesky problem of "altrusim" in biology, and I think would be if some use in this discussion.

You are right the key word in that statement being "harm". That is very subjective. Is it harm to you if it wastes 5 minutes of your life? Costs you some money? Rand was very tight with her interpretation and never in her life helped anybody that put her out for even 5 minutes. Hell there are plenty of people that have no clue what objectivism is that are the same way.